The article really should not have even mentioned tired light. It's not really what Gupta is proposing. He is instead proposing that Dirac was correct about some things we view as constants not actually being constant.
He isn't proposing steady state. He's basically saying that Dirac might have been right in proposing things like the gravitational constant or fine-structure constant are time variant over long enough times. If what we think are constants, aren't, anything is possible.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.11667.pdf
Here's one of Gupta's papers.