Big Bill, Small Standards

When Idaho’s conservative purity test is applied to the Big Beautiful Bill, the results expose a double standard and reveal who the real RINOs are now.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed H.R. 1, commonly referred to as the “Big Beautiful Bill.” The legislation includes permanent extensions of the 2017 tax cuts, billions in new border enforcement spending, increased surveillance authority, expanded federal control over immigration policy, and cuts to programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and renewable energy initiatives.

The bill also includes a debt ceiling increase of up to $5 trillion, adds work requirements for certain benefit programs, and mandates biometric tracking at ports of entry. It creates a new federal agency within the Department of Homeland Security and allows for the deputization of local and state law enforcement officers to carry out federal immigration enforcement duties.

Supporters of the bill have framed it as a return to national priorities and an affirmation of Republican values. Many in Idaho’s Republican delegation have praised it publicly or signaled support, pointing to enhanced border security, tax relief, and reductions in federal social spending.

This comes at a time when Idaho’s Republican primaries are shaped by internal divisions over who gets to define conservatism. One of the loudest voices in that debate is the Idaho Freedom Foundation, which uses confrontational tactics and its Freedom Index scoring system as a purity test designed to enforce its narrow definition of what it means to be a Republican.

The Freedom Index evaluates each bill across 14 metrics:

1. Does it expand or reduce government?

2. Does it transfer functions from the private sector to the government?

3. Does it increase or reduce regulation of market activity?

4. Does it increase or reduce barriers to market entry?

5. Does it create or eliminate taxes, fees, or assessments?

6. Does it redistribute or limit redistribution of wealth?

7. Does it increase or decrease government spending or debt?

8. Does it reduce or increase transparency or accountability in government?

9. Does it violate or protect equal protection under the law?

10. Does it increase or decrease penalties for victimless or non-violent crimes?

11. Does it violate or uphold constitutional protections?

12. Does it violate or protect the principles of federalism?

13. Does it promote or protect the traditional family and Western values?

14. Does it expand or limit the state’s monopoly over education?

For years, the IFF has claimed that its scoring system is objective and rooted in principle. It is frequently used in campaign materials and political advertising, often to attack Republican incumbents who have been targeted in a primary race.

As an experiment, I applied the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s 14-point purity test to the Big Beautiful Bill—a measure backed by the Republican-led House, the Republican President, and national conservative groups. I instructed ChatGPT to analyse the 1,200-page bill in detail and accurately apply all of IFF’s metrics against it to come up with a hypothetical score.

If IFF’s metrics are the gold standard to define what it means to be a Republican, then the bill should score well. Let’s see how it holds up…

Idaho Freedom Foundation 14-Point Score for the Big Beautiful Bill (H.R. 1)

1. Does it expand government?
Yes. The bill creates a new federal agency—the Office of Immigration Integrity—within DHS, hires tens of thousands of new ICE, CBP, and enforcement agents, and expands surveillance infrastructure at the southern border. These are all direct increases in the size and scope of government.
Score: –1

2. Does it transfer private sector functions to the government?
Yes. The mandatory E-Verify program moves employment verification responsibilities from businesses to a centralized federal database. The bill also expands federal control over previously independent NGO activity and community-level enforcement practices.
Score: –1

3. Does it give the government new regulatory authority over the free market?
Yes. The bill introduces new compliance mandates for employers (E-Verify), imposes criminal and civil liability on NGOs for aiding undocumented immigrants, and creates regulatory requirements around biometric data collection for all visa holders.
Score: –1

4. Does it increase barriers to entry in the market?
Yes. Employers—especially small businesses and rural contractors—face new hiring restrictions, compliance costs, and exposure to penalties under E-Verify. The bill also imposes additional licensing and logistical burdens through new federal enforcement partnerships.
Score: –1

5. Does it raise taxes, fees, or assessments?
Yes. The bill includes a $1,000 asylum application fee, a 3.5% remittance tax on money sent abroad by non-citizens, and effectively raises net tax liability for certain groups by repealing clean energy and low-income housing tax credits.
Score: –1

6. Does it increase government redistribution of wealth?
Yes. Billions of dollars are directed to defense contractors, border state enforcement operations, and select industries through new earmarks and enforcement grants. At the same time, existing benefit programs are restructured to reduce spending in other areas, creating politically directed redistribution.
Score: –1

7. Does it increase government spending or debt?
Yes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will add $3 to $5 trillion to the federal deficit. Major expenditures include $150 billion for defense and border infrastructure, a $5 trillion debt ceiling hike, and long-term tax cuts without offsets.
Score: –1

8. Does it reduce transparency or government accountability?
Neutral. While the bill expands government operations and enforcement power, it does not include provisions that directly weaken FOIA access, reduce public records availability, or undermine election oversight.
Score: 0

9. Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law?
Yes. The bill imposes separate and disproportionate penalties on nonprofits and humanitarian groups for aiding undocumented immigrants. It also includes targeted taxes and fees applied exclusively to immigrants and non-citizens.
Score: –1

10. Does it increase penalties for victimless or non-violent crimes?
Yes. The bill introduces criminal and civil penalties for nonviolent conduct, including humanitarian aid to migrants and administrative violations tied to work authorization and visa compliance. These are not tied to violent or property-based offenses.
Score: –1

11. Does it violate the Constitution?
Yes. Several provisions raise constitutional concerns, including biometric data collection without clear warrant protections, deputization of state and local law enforcement for federal duties, and aggressive surveillance mandates at ports of entry.
Score: –1

12. Does it violate federalism by increasing federal authority?
Yes. The bill preempts state regulation of artificial intelligence for a 10-year period, imposes federal enforcement duties on state and local officials, and centralizes compliance processes that previously fell under state jurisdiction.
Score: –1

13. Does it promote the breakdown of traditional family or societal norms?
No. The bill’s stated aims—border security, enforcement, and tax cuts—align with the IFF’s definition of pro-family, Western values. It does not include language that would be interpreted as undermining traditional values.
Score: +1

14. Does it expand the government’s monopoly on education?
Yes. The bill cuts federal funding for school choice and charter school grants, removes funding flexibility that previously expanded parental options, and re-centralizes education spending into legacy institutional systems.
Score: –1

Final Freedom Score: –12

This is a lower score than many bills the Idaho Freedom Foundation has previously labeled as government overreach or “socialist” policymaking. The Freedom Score has often been used to oppose increased funding for K–12 education, rural healthcare access, childcare tax credits, infrastructure improvements, and even bipartisan efforts to improve local government transparency.

Yet the Big Beautiful Bill—which expands federal authority, increases spending, grows surveillance programs, and imposes new mandates on employers and nonprofits—has received no criticism from the same organizations that campaign relentlessly on ideological purity in Idaho. There has been no mention of the biometric tracking systems, the new federal agency, or the added regulatory burdens placed on private industry. The silence signals approval.

The double standard is clear. Idaho legislation that responds to the needs of Idaho communities is routinely labeled “statist” or “anti-freedom” when proposed by Republican legislators who fall outside the IFF-aligned circle. But when a national Republican administration advances a bill that violates nearly every one of their stated principles, that ideological lens is conveniently ignored.

This contradiction highlights the mental gymnastics required for groups like IFF, Idaho Freedom Action, and Stop Idaho RINOs, as well as their network of political propagandists, to maintain the illusion that they alone define conservatism. Their definition of a “real Republican” has become so narrow and selectively applied that it no longer resembles the national Republican platform.

The Republican-led House, Republican Senators, the Republican President, and prominent conservative institutions all endorsed the Big Beautiful Bill. By every practical measure, it reflects the current national Republican policy agenda.

Many legislators and candidates endorsed by the Idaho Freedom PAC, the Idaho Freedom Caucus, and the Citizens Alliance of Idaho have publicly supported the bill while continuing to enforce ideological purity tests based on IFF scores and newly adopted Idaho GOP resolutions. These standards, rooted in an outdated framework, are used to discredit Republican lawmakers who don’t fall in line, even as the standards shift to protect favored candidates.

If the Big Beautiful Bill violates nearly every metric these groups use to define conservatism—and their endorsed candidates still praise it—then the standards they use to label others are no longer credible. A test that can’t be applied consistently is not a test at all.

The Freedom Score no longer measures commitment to limited government, fiscal discipline, or constitutional values. It is a tool used to reward loyalty and performative grandstanding while villainizing those who dare dissent. The term “RINO” no longer reflects policy or principle. It’s an abusive label applied to anyone outside a shrinking and self-serving groupthink.

Now that the Big Beautiful Bill reflects the direction of national Republican policy, the true outliers are those still clinging to purity tests that no longer reflect the party’s newly established values. By their own definition, they are the ones who have stepped outside the newly applied platform of the party.

They are the RINOs now.

---

About the Author

Gregory Graf is the creator of Political Potatoes and a lifelong conservative Republican. His articles often criticize the hypocrisy committed by far-right grifters who’ve taken control of the Idaho GOP and inaccurately define what it means to be a Republican.

Do you want to help support Political Potatoes? Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription and/or leave a tip 😊 Your support keeps this work going and is appreciated.

Disclaimer
The following is intended to convey an opinion on newsworthy events of public concern regarding public figures and/or public officials in exercising their official duties. No implications or inferences—beyond those explicitly stated in the preceding— are intended to be conveyed or endorsed by the Author. Wherever available, hyperlinks have been provided to allow readers to directly access any underlying assertions of fact upon which this opinion is based.