Tanner Barton

@chelseanbarton is the love of my life. #gocards.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

The President’s Big Beautiful Bill, the Iran War, and Republican spending bills will create a $2 trillion budget DEFICIT in 2026.

Financing just the new debt costs more than all federal road & bridge projects, and we will be making those new interest payments each year, forever.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

@PatriotLadyLucy @NaplesQueen Epstein’s friends are not my constituents.

[Joe Kent @joekent16jan19]

History teaches us that taking advice from neocon chicken hawks gets us endless quagmires in the Middle East.

[jack @jack]

.@RepThomasMassie for president

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

When Congress votes to increase spending, they’re voting to increase your taxes,

because you’ll pay for the additional spending through inflation and debt and taxes later, if not through taxes today.

I’m the only Member of the House who hasn’t voted to increase your taxes.

[Geiger Capital @Geiger_Capital]

Having basic Voter ID is now "far-right"…

Every developed nation in the world is far-right.

[Tanner Barton @TannerBarton_]

@CarlSparre @JonnyCapitalist @JessePeltan Interesting, I'm curious how sabatier CO4 would be better than simple electrolysis hydrogen as sabatier requires 3+ units of energy per 1 unit of output while electrolysis is around 2:1. Is it due to preexisting natural gas architecture being compatible with CO4? Leaky hydrogen?

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

ICYMI:

Frmr Chief Economist of World Bank
Frmr President of Harvard University
Frmr Treasury Secretary for Clinton
Frmr Dir. of Natl Econ Council for Obama
Frmr Board Member of OpenAI

Larry Summers has resigned from Harvard due to Epstein files.

You’re welcome.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

Can you, the people, “vote your way out of this?”

Honestly, not if you get your news from these folks.

The swamp has tricks for deceiving the public, and most even work on congressmen. Here’s an example of how Laura and Greg played along as happy tools of the swamp.

Please ask yourself why your own congressman has never talked about this. He either hasn’t gotten this far in the game (80% chance), or he likes the way the swamp obscures what’s going on (10% chance), or he dislikes the system but the price he’d pay for telling you is too high (10% chance). If a congressman sees this post and wants to debate me, I accept!

The House has rules we adopt at the beginning of each Congress. Honestly we should just use those - some go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. Some are like Robert’s Rules of Order which branched from House rules a century ago. But we have a rules committee that modifies the rules every week. I served on the rules committee for two years. When I was on the committee, I refused to vote for rules changes if the purpose was to mislead or obscure. Every week, the rules committee bends the rules to suit the Speaker, but you can’t place the blame just on the committee or the Speaker. Every rules change must be approved by the whole House with a majority vote.

Rank and file congressmen are told to vote for these rules modifications each week for the sake of party loyalty because the rules are temporarily modified by the majority to keep the minority from using the permanent rules against us. This is partly true, so most congressmen never question beyond this.

Typically, every week the rules committee meets before other committees and writes a rules package to protect bills that will come to the floor that week. Then the whole house votes on this rules package early in the week before significant legislation comes to the floor. The vote is typically on party lines. Sometimes a block of congressmen in the majority will take the rules package hostage and withhold their vote to get something else that has nothing to do with the rules. I’m not a big fan of this, but after 13 years, my hands aren’t completely clean of this tactic.

The high-road position that I try to maintain is that if the rules package is bad, you shouldn’t vote for the rules package, and in general you shouldn’t withhold your vote from a rules package if there’s nothing wrong with the rules package… even if you disagree with the policy that is enabled to come to the floor by the rules package.

There are more details, but that’s all you need to know to understand what I’m going to explain next.

This week the Speaker wanted to do two things outside of our base rules, so he put those inside of the rules package that also had the rules for bringing bills like the popular SAVE Act to the floor, knowing members would be afraid to vote against something associated with SAVE. THIS IS INTENTIONAL.

The Speaker wanted to circumvent the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to avoid voting on tariffs and he wanted to turn off the ban on bringing a spending bill to the floor the same day it’s introduced.

The first rules package that came to the floor this week failed because myself and other republicans objected to it. The rules committee met again, wrote a new rules package without the tariff-trick, and we voted on the second rules package. I voted no but internet goons, like clockwork, characterized this as a vote against the SAVE Act.

The swamp used that second rules package to give them authority to pass a bill before anyone could read it. They hid that authority inside the rule for the SAVE act because they knew people like Laura and Greg would help them disparage anyone who didn’t go along.

If you fell for Laura and Greg’s slop you were cheering for the Pelosi doctrine that we should pass bills to see what’s in them. If the rules package had failed, the rules committee would have written a better one and SAVE Act would have still come to the floor.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

@EricLDaugh Can the FBI just enforce the law without adopting every leftist gun banner talking point?

🚫Carrying a gun = bad intentions.
🚫Loaded guns = bad guns.
🚫Spare magazines = extra bad.
🚫More than 10 rounds = bad.

[Faizan @faizannriaz]

Girls after one minor argument: “I’m never speaking to you again.”

Boys after calling each other fascist and jihadist:

[Tanner Barton @TannerBarton_]

@btrekman1 @CaptMarkKelly Key term here, "manifestly illegal", which does not include "I followed orders to stand at a street corner in DC when some 4 year leader cited some loosely interpreted law". A soldier could still get in trouble for disobeying such an order even if a judge blocks the order later

[Eric Daugherty @EricLDaugh]

🚨 BREAKING: The BBC’s news CEO and Director General just RESIGNED after being exposed for deceptively EDITING President Trump’s Jan 6th speech https://t.co/aEnKIpbzfz

They CUT when he said “cheer on congressman” and had him say “fight like HELL” — slashing out important context to make him appear to advocate violence.

Except he didn’t.

GOOD RIDDANCE! The media is facing ACCOUNTABILITY 🔥

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

You are a taker, not a maker. All you’ve done your whole life is take from the makers of the world.

The zero-sum mindset you have is at the root of so much evil. Once you realize that civilization is not zero-sum and that it is about making far more than one consumes, then it becomes obvious that the path to prosperity for all is just let the makers make.

Regarding Tesla, the reality is that I have been given nothing.

However, if I lead Tesla to become the most valuable company in the world by far and it stays that way for 5 years, shareholders voted to award me 12% of what is built. Anyone who wants to come along for the ride can buy Tesla stock.

If Tesla “merely” becomes a $1.999 trillion dollar company, I get nothing. This is a great deal for shareholders, which is why they voted so overwhelmingly to approve this, for which I am immensely grateful.

And they did so by a margin far more than you won your political seat.

[Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie]

Please pray for the crew, those on the ground, and first responders involved in the UPS plane crash in Louisville.

[Jared Isaacman @rookisaacman]

Thank you, Mr. President @POTUS, for this opportunity. It will be an honor to serve my country under your leadership. I am also very grateful to @SecDuffy, who skillfully oversees @NASA alongside his many other responsibilities.

The support from the space-loving community has been overwhelming. I am not sure how I earned the trust of so many, but I will do everything I can to live up to those expectations.

To the innovators building the orbital economy, to the scientists pursuing breakthrough discoveries and to dreamers across the world eager for a return to the Moon and the grand journey beyond--these are the most exciting times since the dawn of the space age-- and I truly believe the future we have all been waiting for will soon become reality.

And to the best and brightest at NASA, and to all the commercial and international partners, we have an extraordinary responsibility--but the clock is running. The journey is never easy, but it is time to inspire the world once again to achieve the near-impossible--to undertake and accomplish big, bold endeavors in space...and when we do, we will make life better here at home and challenge the next generation to go even further.

NASA will never be a caretaker of history--but will forever make history.

Godspeed, President Donald J. Trump, and Godspeed NASA, as America leads the greatest adventure in human history 🇺🇸

[Jared Isaacman @rookisaacman]

It is unfortunate that NASA’s team and the broader space community have to endured distractions like this. There are extraordinary opportunities and some risks ahead and so the focus should be on the mission. With many reporters and other interested parties reaching out, I want to help bring some clarity to the discussion... unfortunately, that means another long post:

I have met Secretary Duffy many times and even flew him in a fighter jet at EAA Oshkosh--probably one of the coolest things a cabinet secretary can do. I have also told many people I think he has great instincts and is an excellent communicator, which is so important in leadership. If there is any friction, I suspect it is more political operators causing the controversy.

This isn't an election or campaign for the NASA Administrator job, the Secretary is the leader and I will root for his success across his many responsibilities. We both believe deeply in American leadership in the high ground of space--though we may differ on how to achieve that goal and whether NASA should remain an independent agency.

It is true that Athena was a draft plan I worked on with a very small group from the time of my initial nomination through its withdrawal in May. Parts of it are now dated, and it was always intended to be a living document refined through data gathering post-confirmation. I would think it is better to have a plan going into a responsibility as great as the leadership of NASA than no plan at all.

It is also true that only one 62-page version of the plan (with unique header/footer markings) was delivered in hard copy back in mid-August to a single party. I learned it was leaked to reporters and across industry last week. It seems some people are letting politics get in the way of the mission and the President’s goals for space. Personally, I think the “why” behind the timing of this document circulating--and the spin being given to reporters--is the real story.

While the full plan exceeded 100 pages, it centered around five main priorities that I will summarize below, including some specifics on the topics attracting the most interest. There is the question--why not release the entire document? Well, one party is clearly circulating it, so I am sure it is only a matter of time before it becomes public--in which case, I will stand behind it. I think there are many elements of the plan that the space community and NASA would find exciting, and it would be disappointing if they never came to fruition. Mostly, I just don’t think the space community needs to debate line-by-line while NASA and the rest of the government are going through a shutdown. I will say everything in the report is consistent with my Senate testimony, my written responses to the Senate for the record, and all the podcasts and papers I have ever spoken to on the subject.

- Reorganize and Empower
Pivot from the drawn-out, multi-phase RIF “death by a thousand cuts” to a single, data-driven reorganization aimed at reducing layers of bureaucracy between leadership and the engineers, researchers, and technicians--basically all the “doers”. Align departments tightly to the mission so that information flows for quick decision-making. One example, which was mischaracterized by a reporter, was exploring relocating all aircraft to Armstrong so there could be a single hierarchy for aviation operations, maintenance, and safety. From there, aircraft like T-38s would operate on detachment at JSC. Other goals of the reorganization, would be to liberate the NASA budget from dated infrastructure that is in disrepair to free up resources to invest in what is needed for the mission of the day. And maybe most importantly, reenergize a culture of empowerment, ownership, and urgency--and recalibrate a framework that acknowledges some risks are worth taking.

– American Leadership in the High Ground of Space
Put more astronauts in space with greater frequency, including rebooting the Payload Specialist programs to give opportunities for the NASA workforce--especially on opportunities that could unlock the orbital economy--the chance to go to space. Fulfill the 35-year promise and President Trump’s Artemis plan to return American astronauts to the Moon and determine the scientific, economic, and national security reasons to support an enduring lunar presence. Eventually, transition to an affordable, repeatable lunar architecture that supports frequent missions. When that foundation is built, shift resources toward the near-impossible that no one else will work on like nuclear electric propulsion for efficient transport of mass, active cooling of cryogenic propellants, surface power, and even potential DoD applications. To be clear, the plan does not issue a directive to cancel Gateway or SLS, in fact, the word “Gateway” is used only three times in the entire document. It does explore the possibility of pivoting hardware and resources to a nuclear electric propulsion program after the objectives of the President’s budget are complete. On the same note, it also seeks to research the possibility that Orion could be launched on multiple platforms to support a variety of future mission applications. As an example of the report being dated, Sen. Cruz’s has subsequently incorporated additional funding in the OBBB for further Artemis missions--which brings clarity to the topic.

- Solving the Orbital Economy
Maximize the remaining life of the ISS. Streamline the process for high-potential science and research to reach orbit. Partner with industry (pharmaceuticals, mining, biotech, etc) to figure out how to extract more value from space than we put in--and critically attempt to solve the orbital economy. That is the only way commercial space station companies will have a fighting chance to succeed. I don’t think there is anything controversial here--we need to figure out how to pay for the exciting future we all want to see in space.

– NASA as a Force Multiplier for Science
Leverage NASA’s resources--financial (bulk buying launch and bus from numerous providers), technical, and operational expertise to increase the frequency of missions, reduce costs, and empower academic institutions to contribute to real discovery missions. The idea is to get some of that $1 trillion in university endowments into the fight, alongside NASA, to further science and discovery. Expand the CLPS-style approach across planetary science to accelerate discovery and reduce time-to-science... better to have 10 x $100 million missions and a few fail than a single overdue and costly $1B+ mission. I know the “science-as-a-service” concept got people fired up, but that was specifically called out in the plan for Earth observation, from companies that already have constellations like Planet, BlackSky, etc. Why build bespoke satellites at greater cost and delay when you could pay for the data as needed from existing providers and repurpose the funds for more planetary science missions (as an example)? With respect to JPL, it was a research request to look at overlaps between the work of the laboratory and what prime contractors were also doing on their behalf. The report never even remotely suggested that America could ever do without the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Personally, I have publicly defended programs like the Chandra X-ray Observatory, offered to fund a Hubble reboost mission, and anything suggesting that I am anti-science or want to outsource that responsibility is simply untrue.

– Investing in the Future
The congressionally mandated “learning period” will eventually expire, and the government will inevitably play a greater role in certifying commercial missions (crewed and uncrewed) just like they do with aircraft, ships, trains, etc. NASA eventually should build a Starfleet Academy to train and prepare the commercial industry to operate safely and successfully in this future space economy, and consolidate and upgrade mission control into a single “NORAD of peaceful space,” allowing JSC to become the spaceflight center of excellence and oversee multiple government and commercial missions simultaneously. Other investments for the future included AI, replacing dated IT systems, and ways to alleviate the demand on the Deep Space Network.

- Closing
This plan never favored any one vendor, never recommended closing centers, or directed the cancellation of programs before objectives were achieved. The plan valued human exploration as much as scientific discovery. It was written as a starting place to give NASA, international partners, and the commercial sector the best chance for long-term success. The more I see the imperfections of politics and the lengths people will go, the more I want to serve and be part of the solution... because I love NASA and I love my country 🇺🇸🚀

[Palmer Luckey @PalmerLuckey]

California (more specifically, the state legislature and Gavin Newsom) just banned Glocks, the most common firearms in the country by far, for being "unsafe", claiming they are too easy to convert into machine guns.

The government claims Glock could have updated their designs to make these illegal conversions harder, that their refusal to do so puts blood on their hands.

In reality, California law is the reason those updates were never made! California (more specifically, Kamala Harris) decided in 2001 that all new handgun designs needed to include microstamping, a non-existent but patented technology that engraves every round with two unique serial numbers as they are fired. Existing designs were grandfathered in, but any changes whatsoever, even texture or color changes, would require this new non-existent technology. It is worth noting that she did so by specifically warranting that the technology was commercially available, which triggered a provision in an existing piece of legislation despite not being true.

As a result, California has been stuck with Glocks designed in 1998. There have been several generations of updates in every other state that make them safer in a variety of ways. It is crazy to blame Glock for not updating their designs in California when the law prohibits them from doing so.

[BowTiedYukon @BowTiedYukon]

I hate to add to your PTSD Tara but

This is the current state of the California Capitol Building

This is costing California taxpayers $1.2 billion

Complete with hidden hallways elected representatives signed NDA’s to block taxpayers knowing the cost

I’m sure you will want to say something to Gavin Newsom about this

[DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican]

Hello, Ms. Setmayer,

I've been seeing people quote-tweet your comment all day.

At first, I brushed it off as typical social-media derangement.

Then I saw you double down:

"This isn't about messaging. This is how I feel, and I won't apologize for it."

So I looked you up, expecting to find an Uber driver or a random influencer. Instead, I found a resume that perfectly captures everything broken about America’s ruling class.

Communications Director in the House of Representatives, 2006–2013.

Then a member of the American Enterprise Institute, one of Washington's oldest and most influential foreign policy NGOs, famous for giving intellectual cover to Iraq, Afghanistan, and every "democracy promotion" venture since.

Then, board member of Stand Up Republic, the "pro-democracy" group founded by Evan McMullin, funded through Arabella's dark-money network, and which conveniently paid McMullin's own LLC over $200,000 in "consulting" and "advertising" fees.

After that, CNN contributor.

Then Senior Advisor to The Lincoln Project, where you remained after its scandal broke... right up until 2024.

Now, somehow, that path earns you the title of Resident Fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics.

And your new PAC, the Seneca Project, pulled in over half a million dollars last year alone.

This isn't just about one absurd comment.

No, a woman vetted by Harvard, CNN, and AEI sincerely comparing Trump-era construction to an act of terrorism isn't an accident.

It's a symptom of how unserious, insulated, and toxic the "defenders of democracy" class has become.

You represent the performative elite consensus that destroyed public trust in every institution it touched.

And let's be honest: if anyone but Trump had approved those renovations, you'd be calling it "historic restoration."

Your tribe is no longer about "democracy." It has become a closed loop of technocrats and oligarches.

We're catching onto you.