Evidence from 2025 shows that fiscal conservatives did not achieve the kind of dominant, austerity‑driven influence Chamath predicted.

1. Major 2025 legislation increased, not restrained, federal borrowing. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act made 2017 tax cuts permanent, added new tax breaks, and sharply increased funding for defense and immigration enforcement; CBO and independent estimates project it will add several trillion dollars to the debt over the next decade, even though it includes delayed cuts to Medicaid and SNAP that begin after 2026. This is a net deficit‑expanding Trumpist agenda, not austerity. (en.wikipedia.org)

2. The 2025 funding deal mostly froze existing spending and still raised long‑run deficits. Congress relied on a full‑year continuing resolution that largely extends FY2024 levels with only limited non‑defense trims and a modest defense bump; non‑partisan analysts estimated the framework would still add trillions to the debt over ten years, and only a couple of Republican fiscal hawks voted no. A one‑year nominal freeze in a high‑inflation, high‑debt context falls well short of the “austerity” Chamath described. (en.wikipedia.org)

3. Actual cuts were narrow and symbolic relative to the overall budget. The Rescissions Act of 2025 canceled roughly $9 billion (mainly foreign aid and public broadcasting) out of a multi‑trillion‑dollar budget—highly visible but fiscally minor, illustrating how limited concrete austerity has been. (en.wikipedia.org)

4. Fiscal conservatives often lost internal fights. Hard‑line Republicans did temporarily stall Trump’s megabill over debt concerns, and some opposed budget resolutions they saw as too loose, but leadership ultimately pushed the core package through; the final law still substantially increases projected deficits, indicating that growth‑and‑culture priorities overrode strict fiscal restraint. (washingtonpost.com)

5. Political salience in 2025 has centered on immigration and trade, not austerity. The year’s defining battles have been mass‑deportation policies and related protests, deployments of federal forces in U.S. cities, and aggressive tariff actions against Canada, Mexico, and China—while state budgets show case‑by‑case adjustments or impasses rather than a nationwide turn to deep spending cuts. That issue mix does not match a landscape where fiscal conservatism and austerity are the dominant political themes. (en.wikipedia.org)

Taken together, 2025 has featured louder fiscal‑hawk rhetoric and some future‑dated cuts, but no broad move to austerity or clear "day" for fiscal conservatives as the primary political winners, so the prediction is best judged as wrong.