Random

    Politics

    Home Politics

    GOP Lawmaker Warns Trump Against One Move That Would ‘Destroy’ Republican Party

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    6

    Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) issued a stark warning Tuesday to President Trump, cautioning that a unilateral move to withdraw the United States from NATO could fracture the Republican Party and trigger long-lasting internal divisions.

    “If he broke up NATO on his own, it would be a civil war in the Republican caucus, or the conference,” Bacon warned CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. “Most of us would find that totally unacceptable, and I’m not alone. There’s a large group of us that believe in our alliances and standing up for freedom and pushing back on China and Russia.

    “We don’t want war with these guys, but you’ve got to be strong, and if he went in and somehow destroyed or tore up NATO, it would probably destroy the party for many years,” he added. “There would be many that will never forgive that.”

    Bacon, a retired Air Force general who has often positioned himself as a more traditional, internationalist Republican, has at times broken with Trump on foreign policy and national security issues. While not a consistent antagonist of the former president, he has repeatedly defended U.S. alliances and a robust global posture—placing him at odds with Trump.

    A moment later, Bacon reiterated that he believes the GOP “would implode” if the U.S. were to depart NATO.

    His comments came after Trump sharply criticized the alliance earlier Tuesday in a Truth Social post, arguing that U.S. military strength makes reliance on allies unnecessary. The president lashed out at countries reluctant to support U.S. operations tied to escalating tensions with Iran.

    “Because of the fact that we have had such Military Success, we no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID!” Trump wrote. “Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea. In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”

    Trump has also been pushing for an international coalition to escort commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route that has been closed since late February amid the conflict with Iran. The disruption has driven sharp increases in oil, gas, and fertilizer prices worldwide.

    On Wednesday, President Trump escalated his rhetoric and floated the idea of shifting responsibility for the Strait of Hormuz to other countries that rely on the strategic shipping route after the U.S. has “finished off” Iran, in a jab at America’s “non-responsive allies.”

    “I wonder what would happen if we ‘finished off’ what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so-called ‘Strait?’ That would get some of our non-responsive ‘Allies’ in gear, and fast!!!,” Trump wrote.

    Moments later he added: “Remember, for all of those absolute “fools” out there, Iran is considered, by everyone, to be the NUMBER ONE STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR. We are rapidly putting them out of business!”

    Despite his criticism of NATO, Trump warned Sunday that the alliance faces a “very bad” future if member nations do not contribute more to joint security efforts. He has long argued that NATO countries fail to meet defense spending commitments and has repeatedly threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the alliance.

    Bacon’s warning underscores the divide between Republicans on the issue. As a lawmaker preparing to leave Congress, bacon has opted to speak more candidly about the potential political consequences of Trump’s foreign policy approach. His comments reflect broader concerns among establishment-minded Republicans who view NATO as central to U.S. global leadership and national security.

    Formed in 1949 to counter Soviet expansion, NATO remains a cornerstone of Western military cooperation. While some Republicans aligned with Trump have dismissed it as outdated, others—like Bacon—argue that abandoning the alliance would not only weaken U.S. influence abroad but is also likely to ignite a damaging rift at home.

    Tick-Tock: Time is running out to sync your Trump account before your data is lost forever! Team Trump is counting on you. HURRY, before it’s too late! [Click HERE to update your info]

    Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls On Trump To Pardon George Santos

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    4
    Marjorie Taylor Greene -Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, via Wikimedia Commons

    Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) is coming to the defense of disgraced former Congressman George Santos, who is currently serving out his prison sentence.

    On Monday, Greene called on President Trump to issue a pardon to Santos, who began his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey last month after being sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and identity theft. (RELATED: Disgraced Former Rep. George Santos Gets Over 7 Years In Prison)

    In a letter to President Trump’s U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin, Greene wrote:

    I am writing to request that your office urge the President to commute the sentence of former Congressman George Santos. In April 2025, Mr. Santos was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft charges. I wholeheartedly believe in justice and the rule of the law, and I understand the gravity of such actions. However, I believe a seven-year sentence for such campaign-related matters for an individual with no prior criminal record extends far beyond what is warranted.

    As a Member of Congress, I worked with Mr. Santos on many issues and can attest to his willingness and dedication to serve the people of New York who elected him to office. He committed himself to serving his constituents and did whatever it took to represent their interests in Washington, D.C. He is sincerely remorseful and has accepted full responsibility for his actions. Furthermore, my office has spoken with a pastor of his who discussed the regret and remorse of Mr. Santos, agreeing that the sentence imposed is a grave injustice.

    While his crimes warrant punishment, many of my colleagues who I serve with have committed far worse offenses than Mr. Santos yet have faced zero criminal charges. I strongly believe in accountability for one’s actions, but I believe the sentencing of Mr. Santos is an abusive overreach by the judicial system.

    Commuting his sentence would acknowledge the severity of his actions and simultaneously provide a path forward in allowing him to make amends for his crimes and strive to better serve the people in his community.

    In May, Santos teared up on Piers Morgan Uncensored and pleaded with Trump for a pardon, “commutation, clemency, whatever the president is willing to give me,” after being sentenced.

    The former congressman also requested protective custody after expressing fear of being “brutalized” in prison.

    “I’m not fearful of dying in there, I’m more fearful of being severely brutalized and harmed, if you get my drift,” he said.

    Watch:

    Last month, during an interview with Tucker Carlson, Santos also expressed concern that his time in prison could be a “death sentence.”

    “Tucker, can I be honest with you?” Santos asked Carlson, who called Santos’s prison sentence unfair compared to lesser sentences handed to violent criminals.

    “I hope you will,” Carlson responded.

    “I don’t know that I survive it. They’re putting me in a violent prison. It’s a medium facility. I’m not a street-wise guy. I don’t know how to fight. I’m a gay man. We– statistics tell you what happens to gay men in prison. I didn’t know I survived this. I, I’m being honest. I mean, I can’t change that,” Santos said, later saying his only hope is prayer and a longshot pardon from President Donald Trump.

    When Carlson pressed Santos on whether he was being serious, Santos insisted he is not “exaggerating” his fear, saying he’s lived a “sheltered” life that in no way prepared him for prison.

    READ NEXT: The Smart Play: Fines, Pressure, And Patience In The Texas House Showdown

    Obama, Criminal in Chief. The mastermind behind the Russia Hoax has been exposed, it’s time to file charges. The Left is desperate to take down Trump.

    Candace Owens Gets Swift Backlash After Unveiling New Project Targeting Erika Kirk

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Image via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Candace Owens announced Monday that her show will return to the air on Wednesday with a new “investigative series” targeting Erika Kirk, the widow of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk — and the backlash was immediate.

    The teaser trailer, which Owens shared on X, opens with news coverage of Charlie Kirk’s assassination before pivoting sharply to its apparent target: his widow. The trailer splices together clips of Erika Kirk with critical commentary about her, references to “Zionists” and Israel, and even an implication that the Turning Point USA CEO was somehow connected to a Romanian human trafficking scandal.

    The series is titled “Bride of Charlie,” and its promotional banner depicts Erika wearing a crown — imagery that many critics have described as taunting and grotesque given the circumstances.

    Owens, who has promoted a range of conspiracy theories about her former colleague’s death, initially claimed she would stop discussing the matter if Erika asked her to. Over time, however, her commentary shifted. What began as insinuation evolved into increasingly direct suggestions that the widow herself may have played a role in betraying her husband.

    In the hours after Owens publicized the project, social media filled with condemnation from across the political spectrum.

    “Everyday, there’s some new line being crossed by this lunatic that makes me wonder whether certain people will finally speak up,” mused RedState’s Bonchie. “They won’t, though. Not even this will be enough, and it’s probably time to start asking why they are so invested in Owens.”

    The timing of Owens’ blistering attack is especially striking. It comes just as the criminal case against Tyler Robinson — the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk at a Sept. 10 event at Utah Valley University — reaches a critical juncture.

    On Tuesday morning at 10:30 a.m. local time, Judge Tony Graf is scheduled to rule during a WebEx hearing on whether to disqualify state prosecutors over an alleged conflict of interest. Robinson is expected to listen from jail.

    The defense has argued that a conflict exists because one of the prosecutors’ children was present at the university event where Kirk was killed. According to Robinson’s attorney, Richard Novak, that connection could compromise the integrity of the prosecution — particularly in a case where the state is seeking the death penalty.

    There have already been two hearings on the issue.

    During a Feb. 3 proceeding, Novak questioned Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray in an effort to determine when prosecutors decided to pursue capital punishment — a decision that was publicly announced shortly after Robinson’s arrest. An unnamed senior prosecutor, identified only as “Prosecutor A,” also testified about the office’s internal handling of the case and its decision to disclose the child’s presence to the defense.

    The prosecutor said there was no recollection of a specific conversation with Gray about how to proceed given the child’s presence, though it was acknowledged that Gray routinely consults senior prosecutors in death penalty cases. The testimony also revealed that Gray expressed early on that he intended to seek the death penalty and wanted that decision announced at the same time charges were filed — earlier than is typical, as such notices often follow a preliminary hearing.

    For its part, the state maintains there is no conflict of interest. Prosecutors have argued in court filings that thousands of people witnessed the shooting and that the child in question did not have a direct line of sight to the alleged gunman. Even if a conflict were found, the state contends, it would not justify disqualifying the entire prosecutorial team.

    As the court weighs a decision that could significantly alter the course of the trial, Owens’ decision to launch a provocative series targeting the victim’s widow has only deepened the sense of outrage surrounding an already tragic case.

    Donate to Turning Point TODAY. Your urgent support helps us win one precinct at a time. Give $100 or more and receive Charlie’s book How We Win as our thank-you gift. Donate NOW to help save America.

    Federal Judge Resigns To Speak Out Against Trump’s ‘Assault On The Rule Of Law’

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    8

    A federal judge appointed by former President Ronald Reagan has resigned his lifetime post to speak publicly against what he describes as a dangerous politicization of the justice system under Donald Trump. Mark L. Wolf, who served on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts since 1985, announced his decision in an op-ed published in The Atlantic, saying he could no longer remain silent as he believes the former president uses the law to reward allies and target adversaries.

    Wolf, 78, said that stepping down would allow him to speak freely after decades of being constrained by judicial ethics rules.

    “President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment,” he wrote. “This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench. The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable.”

    A Massachusetts native and Harvard Law graduate, Wolf began his public service career in the Department of Justice in 1974, joining just after the Watergate scandal. He served under Attorney General Edward Levi during President Gerald Ford’s administration—a formative experience that, he said, shaped his views on nonpartisan justice and the importance of public trust in the legal system. He later became a top federal prosecutor in Boston before Reagan nominated him to the bench. Over nearly four decades as a judge, Wolf became known for handling high-profile corruption cases and for his work to strengthen judicial ethics and transparency.

    Wolf took senior status in 2013, meaning he already had a reduced caseload and his seat was filled the following year by Judge Indira Talwani. His resignation, therefore, does not create a new vacancy for any administration to fill. Instead, it marks his formal departure from a system he says is under siege from political manipulation.

    “I decided all of my cases based on the facts and the law, without regard to politics, popularity, or my personal preferences,” Wolf wrote. “That is how justice is supposed to be administered—equally for everyone, without fear or favor. This is the opposite of what is happening now.”

    Speaking to The New York Times, Wolf said he hopes to serve as a voice for other judges who feel bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct from speaking candidly about growing public distrust in the courts. “I hope to be a spokesperson for embattled judges who, consistent with the code of conduct, feel they cannot speak candidly to the American people,” he said.

    The White House pushed back sharply on Wolf’s remarks. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital that judges “who want to inject their own personal agenda into the law have no place on the bench.”

    She added that Trump’s record of legal victories undermines Wolf’s claim of politicization: “With over 20 Supreme Court victories, the Trump Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings. Any other radical judges that want to complain to the press should at least have the decency to resign before doing so.”

    Democrats want to run America into the ground. Turning Point PAC supports nationwide candidates who are dedicated to SAVING our country. [Click HERE to help save America]

    New York Governor’s Race Shifts Toward Republicans

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Election forecasters have shifted another gubernatorial race towards Republicans with less than one month to go until Election Day.

    On Saturday, RealClearPolitics shifted the New York gubernatorial race from “leans Democrat” to “toss up” as Republican candidate Rep. Lee Zeldin continues to close the gap between himself and New York Gove, Kathy Hochul.

    The latest change comes just a week after the polling data aggregator shifted the race from “likely Democratic” to “leans Democratic.” In August Gov/ Hochul led Zeldin by as many as 24 points but another poll in September showed the governor up by 17. However new data suggest the Republican candidate has remarkably made it a competitive race in deep blue New York, according to The Daily Wire.

    New York’s move to “toss-up” comes a week after a Trafalgar Group poll indicated that the race is neck-and-neck. One of the biggest reasons Hochul appears to be lagging among her own party and Zeldin is surging is the growing problem of crime in the state. Trafalgar Group chief pollster Robert Cahaly told The Daily Wire last week that crime is overwhelmingly the top issue for New York voters. “It’s the only state we’ve seen crime exceed the economy,” he said.

    As Zeldin mentioned in his tweet, the Hochul campaign has not agreed to more than one debate that the governor wants to hold just two weeks before the election. In return, Zeldin refused to debate Hochul at all if she would not agree to more than one, meaning New Yorkers might not see the two gubernatorial candidates on stage together at all before the election.

    “I am rejecting Kathy Hochul’s offer to one single debate at the very end of October,” Zeldin said during a virtual press conference, according to the New York Daily News. “I believe that it’s important for Kathy Hochul to come back with an offer to do multiple debates in multiple parts of this state.”

    “I am not playing along with her games, I am not going to be playing along with this strategy that is an insult, disrespecting the voter of New York,” he added.

    Zeldin’s surge in the polls follows a recent shooting in front of his home. The Republican Congressman has made the issue of rising crime a cornerstone of his campaign.

    Amanda Head: Unabomber Treated Better Than Today’s Conservatives By FBI

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    0

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has become increasingly politicized and instead of targeting dangerous criminals and terrorists, it seems conservatives are their prime suspects.

    Listen to what Amanda has to say below.

    Liz Cheney Equates Trump Insults To Death Threats As Political Violence Reaches Fever Pitch

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    5
    Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Liz is stoking the fire…

    Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) denounced former President Trump for his recent comments labeling her a “war hawk” asserting that his language is akin to a death threat, equating his rhetoric to that of a dictator.

    “This is how dictators destroy free nations,” Cheney, who has been a vocal critic of the former president, said Friday in a post on social platform X. “They threaten those who speak against them with death.”

    “We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant,” she added.

    Her response comes a day after Trump criticized her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, for endorsing Vice President Harris during a fireside chat with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in Arizona.

    “And I don’t blame him for sticking with his daughter, but his daughter is a very dumb individual, very dumb,” Trump said Thursday.

    “She’s a radical war hawk,” he continued, echoing comments he’s made before. “Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine-barrel shooting at her, okay. Let’s see how she feels about it. you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

    Cheney, the former No. 3 House Republican, said in early September that she would be voting for Harris. 

    Cheney’s claims Trump’s comment equates to death threats come as threats of political violence have reached an all-time high in this country.

    Earlier this week, Florida law enforcement officers apprehended a teenager for threatening voters with a machete.

    Caleb James Williams, 18, was arrested after two women called the Neptune Beach Police Department when he allegedly brandished the weapon against them at an early voting polling station.

    A Pennsylvania woman was also arrested earlier this week after allegedly making threats against former President Donald Trump before a scheduled rally at Penn State University.

    Paul J. Gavenonis, 74, a registered Democrat and resident of Spring Township, reportedly made alarming comments while purchasing a parking pass at the university’s transportation office. According to witnesses, Gavenonis, who identifies as transgender, expressed hostility toward Trump, stating, “I hate Donald Trump. I’d like to shoot that guy,” while making a gesture that resembled cocking a gun.

    WE NEED YOU! If you want leaders who focus on jobs and keeping America safe instead of woke politics support Bernie Moreno for US Senate. Donate TODAY.

    GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    2
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.

    The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.

    Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.

    Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.

    To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”

    In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.

    And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.

    To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.

    This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.

    There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”

    Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.

    What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.

    Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.

    None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.

    The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.

    What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.

    This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.

    If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    DOUBLE Your Impact to Crush the Left’s Comeback! It’s up to patriots like you to stop them. Heritage will match every dollar — up to $1 MILLION. Double your impact before it’s too late!

    .

    Georgia Republican Lt. Gov. Blames Senate Loss on Trump

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    13
    Tech. Sgt. Samuel King Jr., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    Following the disappointing results in Georgia’s Senate runoff election, the state’s Lieutenant Governor is voicing what he thinks happened.

    Geoff Duncan, Georgia’s No. 2 Republican official, told CBS that Herschel Walker “will go down in history as probably one of the worst candidates in our party’s history” and said Republicans should unequivocally blame Donald Trump for the GOP’s disappointing midterm results.

    “The only way to explain this is candidate quality,” Duncan added, alluding to Walker’s numerous controversies, including, but not limited to, claims he paid and pressured two women to have abortions despite running on a strict no-abortion platform and lied about his education, ties to law enforcement, and family.

    Duncan said Warnock’s victory in a once-red state should serve as a wake-up call for Republicans and force the GOP to face some hard truths about the former president and his pull among the electorate.

    “If we don’t take our medicine here, it’s our fault. … Every Republican in this country ought to hold Donald Trump accountable for this,” he said.

    Walker’s defeat hands Democrats an outright majority in the upper chamber of Congress, 51-49.

    Report: Youngkin’s Trump White House Hopes Dim After Virginia Setback

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    1
    President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

    The political fallout from Virginia’s redistricting referendum is reaching beyond the state, cutting into Glenn Youngkin’s standing at a moment that matters for his future.

    In recent weeks, the former governor had been floated as a possible pick for a Trump administration role, with secretary of labor among the positions mentioned. He was seen as a Republican who could point to a win in a blue-leaning state and bring a different profile into a national cabinet.

    That window now looks narrower.

    Timing Undercuts Momentum

    The criticism from inside GOP circles is landing at a particularly inconvenient time for Youngkin.

    According to Politico’s Dasha Burns, administration officials are blaming him for not doing enough to stop the redistricting measure, which passed by a slim margin and could shift up to four House seats toward Democrats. It’s the kind of loss that gets noticed in Washington, especially when control of the House is on the line.

    And it’s not just about the outcome. It’s about perception.

    A senior official, speaking anonymously, put it bluntly: “He doesn’t have enough friends here.” That comment points to a problem that goes beyond one referendum. It suggests Youngkin lacks the internal support that often decides who gets a seat at the table.

    Burns continues:

    Becca Glover, executive director of Youngkin’s Spirit of Virginia PAC, defended the former governor’s efforts, noting he raised and contributed nearly $500,000 to Virginians for Fair Maps and supported the Congressional Leadership Fund and Fair Maps’ fundraising efforts.

    “The governor hit the campaign trail making many stops across the Commonwealth from Wise to Virginia Beach to Leesburg to motivate the grassroots to vote no,” Glover said. “He was proud to be part of a team including Speaker [Mike] Johnson and other former governors to get out the vote.”

    Glover also pointed to the dozens of interviews Youngkin did and his efforts at retail campaigning.

    “He continues to ask that the Supreme Court of Virginia to strike down this unconstitutional power grab,” Glover said.

    A source briefed on White House discussions pushed back, saying Youngkin’s actions helped set the stage for the current difficulties facing him and his party in Virginia.

    “Look, there’s plenty of blame to go around. But if Youngkin hadn’t left the special session open, Louise Lucas would never have had the chance to ram through those maps,” the person said, referring to the Democratic state senator who played a key role in advancing the redistricting effort. “So he has some responsibility for losing these seats.”

    From Rising Star to Question Mark

    Youngkin’s appeal to national Republicans has always been tied to his 2021 victory and his ability to win in a competitive state without fully leaning into Trump-style politics.

    But that brand cuts both ways.

    Inside a Trump-aligned orbit, relationships and loyalty still carry more weight than résumé lines. Another loss in Virginia, even one tied to a ballot measure, gives skeptics more reason to question how much influence Youngkin really has, both at home and in the broader party.

    That matters when administration roles are being discussed behind closed doors.

    Fewer Openings, More Competition

    Even under the best conditions, cabinet-level positions are limited and highly competitive. Candidates need more than a strong narrative. They need advocates inside the administration willing to push their case.

    Right now, the signals suggest Youngkin doesn’t have that backing.

    The criticism tied to the referendum may not be decisive on its own. But combined with lingering doubts about his connections in Washington, it adds friction at the worst possible time.

    READ NEXT: Indicted Democrat Who Resigned From Congress Plans Reelection Bid

    Turning Point is funding the largest ballot-chasing operation in U.S. history to win key battleground states. Our grassroots army is already in the field for 2026 and beyond. But they can’t stay there without your support. Donate today to help win the midterms, protect the America First movement, and keep conservatives in power.
    123...60Page 1 of 60
    © Great America News Desk 2022