Vulnerable Republicans step up appeals to Trump amid primary threats
Vulnerable GOP senators are taking steps to appeal to President Trump as they stare down the possible threat of primary challengers next year.
A handful of these senators have faced criticism from the right wing accusing them of not being sufficiently supportive of Trump and his agenda.
Since Trump took office in January, however, some of these Republicans, including Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.), John Cornyn (Texas) and Thom Tillis (N.C.), have taken steps to show their allegiance to Trump through public statements and support for his nominees.
'[Trump's] the most powerful he's ever been,' Republican consultant Scott Wilfong said. 'And if you don't have his favor, you're looking to get it.'
The risk of a primary challenge for not being supportive enough of the president has been a political reality for the GOP during the Trump era. Since first taking office, Trump has shown a willingness to criticize members of his own party, withhold his endorsement of them and even back challengers to incumbents, unlike any of his predecessors in the Oval Office.
While the Republican Party has only become increasingly unified behind Trump, there remains a handful of party figures who — despite considering themselves strong supporters of the president and overwhelmingly voting in line with his stances — have been attacked for insufficient loyalty and commitment to his ideals.
This criticism has generally come from Trump's most fervent supporters, some of whom are interested in ousting those members of Congress.
The most vulnerable may be Cassidy, the two-term Louisiana senator who already has a primary challenge announced.
Louisiana state Treasurer John Fleming (R) launched his candidacy for Cassidy's seat in December, declaring Cassidy has 'failed the people of Louisiana' and arguing the state deserves a 'true conservative voice.'
Fleming slammed Cassidy's support for some legislation supported by the Biden administration, including the bipartisan infrastructure law and gun safety law passed in the aftermath of the Uvalde, Texas, shooting.
But the biggest blemish on his career in the eyes of Trump's most loyal followers is voting to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial over the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Cassidy's willingness to criticize Trump could be his main Achilles' heel, more than any policy issue, said Wilfong, who is based in Louisiana.
'I think it's unique, because I really don't know a lot of policy issues that voters are mad at Cassidy on. He doesn't have one of those bad votes, other than the vote on Trump,' Wilfong said, adding that some may be upset at his infrastructure bill vote, but the anger is not as pronounced.
Wilfong said Cassidy has improved his chances in recent years, coming 'back from the dead,' putting in hard work for local constituents and delivering infrastructure money for the local government. And he, and others in similar positions, have been playing up their allegiance to Trump.
The social media profiles for Cassidy, Tillis, Cornyn and Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst (R) are filled with posts praising the president's decisions and noting contrasts with the Biden administration.
Posts thanking and praising the Trump administration are certainly commonplace for Republican members of Congress, but may have particular importance for those in potentially vulnerable electoral positions.
'You can never thank Donald Trump too much, but you can thank him too little,' one North Carolina Republican operative said.
Beyond statements declaring support for Trump's energy policy and '100%' backing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following the leak of plans to attack the Houthis, Cassidy recently responded to Trump's executive order to dismantle the Education Department by introducing legislation to formally shut it down.
Cornyn officially launched his reelection campaign Wednesday and immediately began the video with praise for Trump's time in office and affirming that Cornyn 'had his back.' This came days after Cornyn received attention for plugging Trump's 'Art of the Deal,' posting a picture of himself reading it.
Cornyn has faced criticism for reaching across the aisle from the party's right flank, as state Attorney General Ken Paxton seems poised to challenge him for the Republican nomination. Paxton has attacked Cornyn over his support for continued U.S. aid to Ukraine and the gun safety legislation.
Some county parties in Texas censured Cornyn for his vote.
One of the thorniest recent issues for these senators was their decisions on some of Trump's most controversial nominees, including Hegseth, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FBI Director Kash Patel.
Cassidy's position as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee gave him prominence in deciding whether to support advancing Kennedy's nomination. After expressing hesitation, he voted in favor.
Tillis was viewed as a possible defector for these votes but declared he would support any nominee voted favorably out of committee and ultimately did back all of them, despite reportedly telling Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) initially that he would vote against Hegseth.
Tillis has faced attacks for voting for Democratic priorities, such as the gun safety legislation and the Respect for Marriage Act, votes that led to the state GOP censuring him. He also faced backlash for efforts working with Democrats on a compromise immigration deal that ultimately didn't advance.
The North Carolina operative said Tillis has 'legitimate' issues with the Republican base but said no major name appears primed to challenge him currently. The controversial former Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R) has ruled out a run, and the only others currently running are little known.
Former state superintendent nominee Michele Morrow has been subject of speculation about a possible run, but the operative said she could be plagued by baggage from her unsuccessful campaign, despite being effective at raising money.
He said he believes Tillis's relationship with Trump is currently positive even if it might not be as strong with some Trump allies. But demonstrating support will need to be consistent, he added.
'Like it or hate it, that's part of the game now,' the operative said. 'And so, if I were him, I'd be down at Mar-a-Lago a lot, and I'd be finding some part of the Trump agenda to really champion loudly and make myself champion for that.'
Someone who may be in an even stronger position may be Ernst, who has received some attacks from the right but hasn't been quite as much a target as others.
She took center stage in the Hegseth nomination process as a key member of the Armed Services Committee. After expressing concerns about Hegseth, including his past statements on women in the military, Ernst voted for his confirmation.
Doug Gross, a former Republican nominee for Iowa governor, noted widespread pressure on Ernst from the right to confirm Hegseth, particularly amid a possible primary challenge from radio talk show host Steve Deace.
An opinion piece from state Attorney General Brenna Bird (R) also caught attention from political observers as Ernst was making her decision. The piece didn't mention Ernst by name but referenced 'D.C. politicians' not ignoring their constituents in what was considered a subtle nod at the senator.
'[Bird's] sending a signal for Trump here in the state and the MAGA base. Joni has been very adept at adjusting when need be to avoid that, and I think she's effectively done that,' Gross said. 'I don't hear any more about primary opponents.'
Gross said Trump's influence has escalated more than during his first term, when he still wasn't shy about using it in primaries.
'The difference this time is twofold,' he said. 'One is, they are in full control of the levers of power, full control, in the party and the country. And secondly, they run a very disciplined political operation that's willing to punish those that aren't with them and reward those that are.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
16 minutes ago
- Washington Post
With fateful decision, Trump gambles his presidency on war
President Donald Trump's decision Saturday to strike Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities was an extraordinary bet that he could eliminate a nuclear program that has bedeviled multiple presidents while avoiding another long-running Middle East conflict of the sort he and his supporters have long denounced. What happens next will have profound consequences for his presidency. If Iran is sufficiently weakened that it cannot meaningfully retaliate, Trump will have delivered a blow against a longtime adversary that will send a message to China, Russia and other global rivals that he will not shy from using military power when necessary.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Iran eyes ‘all options' in response to ‘outrageous' US strikes
Iran early Sunday morning warned the United States' attacks on three nuclear sites would have 'everlasting consequences,' saying it is reviewing 'all options' to respond to the strikes. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior,' Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi posted on social media platform X. Araghchi maintained Iran would be acting in 'self-defense' with any retaliation to the strikes authorized by President Trump, stating Tehran 'reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' The comments came roughly two hours after Trump warned of more attacks on Iran if it did not agree to a satisfactory peace deal in the wake of the U.S. bombing Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. The president said the three Iranian nuclear facilities were 'completely and totally obliterated' by American strikes. United Nations secretary-general António Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' over the Trump administration's use of force, adding, 'This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.' Iran's top diplomat on Sunday accused the U.S. of having 'committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations.' Trump's decision to strike Iran came after more than a week of Israeli attacks against its biggest regional rival. Israel and the U.S. have said Iran's nuclear enrichment program went beyond levels needed for civilian use and vowed to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. 'Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror,' Trump said in remarks at the White House, calling Saturday's strikes a 'spectacular military success.'
Atlantic
33 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Only Iran Hawk Is Trump
By carrying out air-strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites last night, Donald Trump showed the fundamental error of American political ornithology: There have never been Iran hawks and Iran doves. There have been only doves. Every prior U.S. president, including Trump himself, has refrained from attacking Iranian territory, even in response to killings and attempted killings of Americans, not only abroad but also on American soil. Whether this dovish approach was wise is debatable; that it was anomalous among American policies toward hostile countries is not. Imagine if Venezuela relentlessly plotted to kill Americans, in locations around the world—and tried to acquire a weapon that would safeguard its campaign of violence for generations to come. Other countries have not been so bold as Iran, and if they had been, the response might have looked like what Iran saw last night in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. At a press conference, Trump said the nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated.' Also beyond debate are the results of that dovish policy, up to yesterday. Some of those results were positive. The United States and Iran were not at war, and American forces in the Middle East were not all at high alert for reprisals. But Iran had gone metastatic. It had, with impunity, set up armed proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, and Iraq, and less overt forces around the world. What other country does this? What other country does this without rebuke? The best argument against attacking Iran's nuclear program has always been that the attack will not work—that it would at best set the program back, rather than end it, and that Tehran would respond by building back better, in a deeper bunker and with greater stealth. An enrichment facility capable of producing a nuclear weapon need not be large, perhaps with the size and power needs of a Costco or two. The Obama-era nuclear deal secured unprecedented access for monitoring Iran's known nuclear sites. The demolition of those sites means that any future ones will be unmonitored, remaining a secret from outsiders for years, like China's was. Think of the cavernous chemistry lab built below the laundry-processing plant in Breaking Bad, but churning out uranium-235, not blue meth. If any other country is thinking about going nuclear, it will learn the lesson of last night and start with the Breaking Bad approach, or better yet scrap its plans completely. From the perspective of nonproliferation, Trump's strikes could be good news, in the obvious sense that countries that desire nuclear weapons now have more reason to think their centrifuges will be destroyed before they produce enough material for a bomb. Up to now, most countries that have persevered have eventually succeeded in going nuclear. The most notable counterexamples were Iraq, whose so-called 'nuclear mujahedin' (as Saddam Hussein later called them) had their enrichment plant at Osirak bombed by Israel in 1981; and Syria, which built a secret plutonium-producing nuclear reactor only to have it destroyed, again by Israel, in 2007. If the strikes last night worked (and it is far too early for anyone, including Trump, to say), Iran will join the small club of nations whose nuclear ambitions have been thwarted by force. 'There will be either peace,' Trump said at his press conference last night, 'or far greater tragedy for Iran.' What might peace and its alternatives look like? Trump did not say, as the Iran dove George W. Bush might have, that peace is conditional on the overthrow of Iran's theocracy. Trump has always seemed open to Iran's continued rule by any authoritarian or scumbag or religious nut who is willing to keep to himself and maybe allow the Trump family to open a hotel someday. So peace could conceivably still take many forms, some of which will disappoint Iranian democrats and secularists. The alternative to peace, which Trump promises will draw such a tragic reply, can take both immediate and longer-term forms. The immediate form is continued Iranian strikes against Israel and the expansion of those attacks to include U.S. bases in the region. (The logic of international law, for what little it is worth, would seem to permit retaliation against military targets—but not hospitals, apartment buildings, or other civilian infrastructure—of both Israel and the United States.) It would at this point be foolhardy for Iran to increase such attacks, rather than ending them or tapering them off. But no one familiar with Iran's history would expect it to limit its reply to conventional strikes, or to prefer them to the irregular forms of attack that it has practiced avidly for more than 40 years. A barrage of ballistic missiles, the regime understands, may invite a tragedy for Iran. But what about the mysterious disappearance of an American from the streets of Dubai, Bahrain, or Prague? Or the blowing up of a hostel full of Israelis in Bangkok? Or cutting the brakes of some American or Israeli diplomat's car in Baku? Small acts of harassment, such as these, force Iran's enemies to make hard choices about how to retaliate. The difficulty of those choices are part of the reason for past presidents' consistent reluctance to attack Iran. Do you attack Iran after the death of one U.S. Marine? How about two? How much proof of Iranian involvement in a diplomat's car crash will it take to trigger a renewed state of war? Iran's history suggests that under normal circumstances, it knows the level of provocation that will keep an American president from responding with direct force. Its estimations seem to have failed it for Trump (and Benjamin Netanyahu), but in the past and in the future, one can expect that it will, like a niggling spouse from hell, know the precise limits of its adversaries' patience. The point of the prolonged pressure, staying a smidge under the threshold of renewed hostility, is to drive Iran's adversaries mad, to tire them out, and to convince them to leave the region out of sheer stress and weariness. Ironically Trump's foreign policy is, or was until yesterday, proof that this strategy is effective. Trump came to power as an isolationist in trade and a bring 'em home skeptic of U.S. military action abroad. In his first term he fired John Bolton, a tireless advocate of regime change. In his second he appointed Tulsi Gabbard, high priestess of weary isolationism, as a top adviser. Trump said that he would escalate American attacks 'if peace does not come quickly.' It is possible that peace will come quickly, and Iran's government will survive in humiliated form. It is also possible, under those circumstances, that the peace that comes quickly will again be illusory, and Iran will revert to tactics short of war, so it can wait out Trump's term, and let another dove take his place. In that case, the Middle East and beyond will be a scarier place to be an American than it was a few days ago.
