Republicans have found plenty to fight about since Donald Trump returned to the White House. Iran, the Epstein files and even the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool have all generated arguments in Washington.
Now add burritos to the list.
Yes, burritos.
What began as a Turning Point USA spokesman repeating a college student’s complaint about the cost of lunch somehow turned into an argument involving Ben Shapiro, former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, Vice President JD Vance and the Trump political operation.
The trouble started Tuesday when TPUSA spokesman Andrew Kolvet posted an observation from a student.
“One of our TPUSA college students gave me his take on affordability. A burrito shouldn’t cost $20,” Kolvet wrote on X.
He acknowledged that some of today’s prices reflect inflation accumulated during and after the pandemic, including the Biden years, but argued that consumers don’t necessarily care which administration gets assigned which portion of the blame.
“The lived experience is the same: it just feels like basic things cost too much,” he wrote.
That observation landed at an uncomfortable moment for Republicans. June inflation reportedly reached 4.2 percent, marking the third consecutive monthly increase and the highest rate in three years. With November’s midterm elections approaching, affordability is hardly an academic question for a party trying to maintain control of Congress.
But Thiessen wasn’t buying the burrito argument.
“Cry me a river,” he responded. “The burritos in the college cafeteria are included in your meal plan.”
Shapiro was even less sympathetic.
“I hear that young people are upset about $20 burritos. Okay, young people: a burrito does not cost $20,” he wrote.
And if someone actually is regularly spending that much?
“If you’re paying $20 for a burrito and you’re not independently wealthy, you’re doing life wrong,” Shapiro continued. “We have enough problems as a country without insane expectations that the government is going to provide us gourmet-quality burritos.”
Fair enough. Nobody has yet proposed the Federal Burrito Assistance Program.
Then Vance arrived.
Instead of producing an economic analysis of food inflation, wages or restaurant prices, the vice president went directly after Thiessen.
“I’m surprised to hear Mark say this,” Vance wrote, misspelling Thiessen’s first name. “If you’ve ever met him in person, it’s quite obvious the man has never missed a burrito.”
Washington political discourse, ladies and gentlemen.
The official Trump political account promptly reposted Vance’s insult and called it “a banger.”
It’s tempting to dismiss the entire episode as another ridiculous social-media squabble, and there is certainly plenty of that involved. But underneath the jokes is a real argument about Republican economics.
The dispute isn’t literally about whether the federal government should guarantee inexpensive Mexican food. It is about what conservatives should say when younger voters complain that ordinary life has become too expensive.
One response is essentially Shapiro’s: consumers have choices, expensive versions of products aren’t necessities, and government shouldn’t be expected to make every desired purchase affordable.
The competing response focuses more heavily on the complaint itself. If younger Americans believe housing, food, transportation and raising children have become prohibitively expensive, Republicans can either tell them to adjust their expectations or consider policies intended to lower those barriers.
Politico reporter Megan Messerly described the disagreement as “nothing short of a battle for the future of the Republican Party.”
“What this ultimately comes down to is there is this raging debate inside the Republican Party right now over what its future economic platform is going to be, especially headed into 2028,” she said on the “Playbook” podcast.
One side of that debate retains more of the traditional Reagan-era emphasis on lower taxes, smaller government and allowing markets to determine outcomes.
Another emerging faction, frequently associated with Vance, has embraced ideas sometimes described as “common good conservatism.” Its advocates are more willing to use government policy to encourage family formation, domestic industry and other economic or social objectives they consider important.
“The old philosophy was: stay out of my business. The government’s role is just to keep the lights on, not to tip the scales in any direction,” Messerly explained. “That is fundamentally not what the next generation of Republicans believe, JD Vance among them.”
That doesn’t mean every Republican fits neatly into one camp, or that a social-media fight over lunch establishes where the party will end up in 2028.
But Kolvet’s original point explains why the argument caught fire.
A voter staring at a restaurant bill isn’t calculating which percentage point of the price increase belongs to COVID disruptions, Biden administration policies, Trump administration policies, labor costs, monetary policy or the restaurant owner’s margins.
He sees the bill.
