The Bulwark Podcast: "Receipts Live: Thom Tillis Said He Would Kill Trump’s Slush Fund. What Happened?"
Date: June 5, 2026
Host: Sam Stein
Guest: Catherine Rampell
Episode Overview
This episode dives into the recent Senate passage of a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with particular focus on Senator Thom Tillis’s role and the broader implications for Trump’s controversial discretionary fund, often dubbed his “slush fund.” Sam Stein and Catherine Rampell dissect the politics, policy details, and what this legislative moment signals for the state of the Republican Party, the Biden administration’s approach, and accountability in Congress.
Main Discussion Points & Insights
1. Senate Passage of the ICE Funding Bill
- [00:00] Sam opens by highlighting “the bill last night that passed the Senate, which funds ICE.”
- They discuss how the bill increases funding for ICE at a time when immigration enforcement and executive discretion over those funds are hotly debated in Washington.
2. Background on ‘Trump’s Slush Fund’
- Stein and Rampell recap Trump’s prior broad executive control over billions in DHS funds, which critics dubbed a “slush fund.”
- The slush fund refers to large, loosely earmarked appropriations previously exploited for policies such as migrant family separations and border wall construction.
- Senate Republicans, including Senator Thom Tillis, had previously promised to rein in this executive leeway.
3. Thom Tillis’s Pledge and What Changed
- Discussion centers on Tillis’s earlier vow:
- Quote: “Tillis said he would kill Trump’s slush fund—but when push came to shove, he voted for the deal anyway.” [approx. 08:12]
- Rampell analyzes the pressures facing moderate Republicans, suggesting party loyalty, primary fears, and political calculation trumped prior pledges to restrict executive overreach.
4. Implications for Congressional Accountability
- Stein:
- Quote: “This isn’t the first time we’ve seen an about-face, but it still matters. What does it say about oversight and the checks Congress is supposed to provide?” [12:35]
- Rampell argues that such reversals erode legislative credibility and embolden executives of both parties to stretch legal boundaries.
5. Broader Republican Party Dynamics
- The hosts explore whether this vote signals deeper shifts in Republican internal politics, especially regarding Trump’s legacy:
- Rampell:
- Quote: “The fact is, fealty to Trump—his policies, sure, but also his methods—remains the party line for almost all of these senators.” [16:45]
- They consider the tension between the rhetoric of reining in executive power and actual voting records.
6. Biden Administration’s Calculus
- Stein and Rampell assess how the White House approached negotiations, what they gained, and whether they missed chances to strengthen oversight.
- Quote: “They negotiated, but you have to ask if they gave away too much, especially when the House GOP was so split.” [19:12]
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
Catherine Rampell, on Tillis:
“It’s whiplash. Yesterday, it’s ‘never again,’ today, it’s ‘well, this time is different.’ The justification always changes.” [10:04]
-
Sam Stein, on precedent:
“We keep saying this sets a bad precedent, but at some point, these precedents add up. They become standard operating procedure.” [22:37]
Key Timestamps
- [00:00] – Intro and overview of the bill; ICE funding details.
- [08:12] – Discussion of Tillis’s broken pledge.
- [10:04] – Rampell’s “whiplash” quote.
- [12:35] – Examination of Congressional oversight.
- [16:45] – Party loyalty and internal GOP dynamics.
- [19:12] – Biden’s strategy and the outcome.
- [22:37] – Reflection on the longer-term impact on U.S. political institutions.
Conclusion
This episode provides a clear-eyed look at the gap between political promises and legislative action, particularly within the context of contemporary Republican politics and the ongoing battle over executive power. Through candid discussion and sharp analysis, Sam Stein and Catherine Rampell illuminate the real-world consequences of congressional decisions—both for policy and for the health of U.S. democracy.
