Clarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Reassess Landmark Voting Law
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissent to the Court's order to postpone a case pertaining to redistricting in Louisiana until next term, with the conservative justice highlighting the need for a "systematic reassessment of our interpretation" of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Newsweek has reached out to several legal scholars for comment via email on Friday.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court, on its final day of issuing opinions for this term, said it would reargue the case, Louisiana v. Callais, concerned with congressional redistricting, next term. The Court will issue an order scheduling argument and "specifying any additional questions to be addressed in a supplemental briefing."
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed at the height of the civil rights movement, is a landmark legislation aimed at preventing racial discrimination in voting.
Congressional redistricting plays a critical role in shaping the balance of power in the House of Representatives. Republicans currently hold 220 seats, while Democrats have 212.
What To Know
The case is concerned with the legality of the creation of a Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana, with a group having sued that it was illegal racial gerrymandering.
Black residents make up nearly one-third of Louisiana's population, accounting for 32.6 percent, according to 2024 Census data.
After the 2020 Census, the state legislature redrew its congressional map, maintaining just one majority-Black district out of six. The majority-GOP legislature later approved a new map that added a second majority-Black district, which is now at the center of the legal challenge.
On Friday, Clarence issued a dissenting opinion to the decision to reargue, writing, "Congress requires this Court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly." Further into his dissent, he reiterated his belief that this case should have been decided this term, stating, "these are the only cases argued this Term in which our jurisdiction is mandatory."
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas appears before swearing in Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General in the Oval Office at the White House on February 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas appears before swearing in Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General in the Oval Office at the White House on February 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Photo byHe says that the case highlights the "intractable conflict between the Court's interpretation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 52 U. S. C. §10301, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."
Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices that are racially discriminatory.
Thomas pointed to conflicts between the VRA and the Constitution in redistricting processes.
He concluded his dissent, reiterating his longstanding position, writing, "For over three decades, I have called for 'a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2.'"
"I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore," he added.
What People Are Saying
Cecillia Wang, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, told Newsweek in a Friday email statement: "Before this case ever began, we had already won a hard-fought legal battle, proving that the legislature's initial map, like Louisiana's maps for generations before, illegally diluted Black voters' political power. Thanks to the Supreme Court's order from May of 2024, which put the district court's injunction on hold, the fair and legal map the Louisiana legislature enacted in response to our litigation remains in place while the case continues next year. We will be back next term to once again defend the new map and the representation Black voters deserve."
Rick Pildes, a law professor at New York University Law School, wrote in an X, formerly Twitter, post: "Big news about race and redistricting: The Supreme Court has decided to reargue the Louisiana case next Term. Will likely open up bigger issues."
Representative Troy Carter, a Louisiana Democrat, said in an X post: "The Supreme Court's decision to rehear the case on Louisiana's congressional maps is a disappointing but not unfamiliar step in the long struggle for fair representation. While the Court did not overturn the map today, its refusal to resolve the issue only prolongs uncertainty."
His official statement reads: "Let me be clear: the map currently in place reflects the demographic reality of our state and the legal mandates of the Voting Rights Act...the map adopted by the legislature was a product of bipartisan negotiation, judicial review, and compliance with federal law. It is not racial gerrymander--it is a remedial measure responding to decades of underrepresentation."
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court is scheduled to resume its term in October.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
New York Post
31 minutes ago
- New York Post
California closes $12B deficit by cutting back immigrants' access to health care
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants, to close a $12 billion deficit. It's the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321 billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a health care expansion for low-income adult illegal immigrants. AP But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday. The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole. 'It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians,' Newsom said in a statement about the budget. California also faces potential federal cuts to health care programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion. 7 California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters in San Francisco, Calif. in June 12, 2025. JOHN G MABANGLO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 7 Migrant farm laborers have their temperatures in King City, Calif. on April 28, 2020. Getty Images 'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.' Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually. 7 Protesters hold up signs supporting healthcare for illegal immigrants during California's Immigrants Day of Action on May 20, 2019 in Sacramento, Calif. AP 'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending,' said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.' Here's a look at spending in key areas: Health care Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded health care program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old. The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it's a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal health care. Democratic state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted 'no' on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities. The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026. But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian.' The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood. 7 A family whose parens are illegal immigrants sign up for government assisted health care at the San Mateo Medical Center in San Mateo Calif. on Feb. 22, 2023. AP Environment Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending. Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. 7 The California State Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. on Aug. 5, 2024. AP The budget doesn't make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year. Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently. Public safety The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment. Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads. Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that's not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program. 7 A protester holds an American and Mexican flag outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles during a rally on June 6, 2025. AP Other priorities Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030. The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense. But cities and counties won't see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds. The budget also doesn't act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.
Atlantic
38 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Red State Where Republicans Aren't Afraid of Trump
Donald Trump's least favorite House Republican, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, likes to do an exaggerated impression of the president. As he recounted a long-ago phone call from Trump before a crowd of supporters in his district, Massie dropped the register of his voice to an octave resembling Yogi Bear's. 'It started out with: I'm more libertarian than you are,' Massie said. 'And it ended with: Well, you're going to get a primary if you vote for this.' The eruption that followed created a scene that you're unlikely to see anywhere else in America these days: a roomful of Republicans laughing at Trump's expense. The 54-year-old has been frustrating Trump since the beginning of the president's first term. The two are now fighting over the extent of Trump's war powers—Massie called the air strikes on Iran unconstitutional—and the president's 'big, beautiful bill,' which the seventh-term lawmaker opposed, one of just two House Republicans to do so. Massie is frequently a lone critic of the president in the 220-member House GOP caucus. But he's not such a solitary voice in the Kentucky delegation. The Bluegrass State backed Trump by 30.5 percentage points last year—one of his largest margins in the country. Nationwide, Republicans are more united around Trump than they've ever been. Yet Kentucky has become a rare hotbed of GOP resistance to the president's agenda. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, an early Trump presidential rival in 2016, is an ideological ally of Massie's; he's criticized the president's tariffs, his expansion of executive authority, and the deficit-busting legislation that contains the bulk of Trump's economic agenda. Then there's the state's senior senator, Mitch McConnell. Liberated from his commitments as Republican leader, the soon-to-retire McConnell has denounced Trump's Ukraine policy and his tariffs. He voted against more of the president's Cabinet nominees—Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary; Robert Kennedy Jr., the health secretary; and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence—than any other GOP senator. McConnell, Paul, and Massie occasionally oppose Trump from different sides. But together they form a powerful bloc among the seven Republicans in Kentucky's eight-man congressional delegation, and their stands against the president are angering many of Trump's diehard supporters in the state, who feel oddly unrepresented by the lawmakers they've sent to Washington. 'We voted for Trump to straighten some things out,' Devon Cain, a 77-year-old retiree, told me outside a farm-supply store in Winchester, a small town outside of Lexington. 'Why a Republican would want to buck him, I don't know.' Mark Wallingford, a physician in rural Mason County, is even more livid. 'I will not vote for Thomas Massie. And if he is unopposed, I just wouldn't vote,' he told me after a local GOP meeting. The clashes between Trump and the Kentucky trio are a sensitive topic among state GOP officials, many of whom are hesitant to take sides against either the popular president or their influential local leaders. 'I'm MAGA all the way, and I'm Massie all the way,' Ken Moellman Sr., a retiree and one of Massie's constituents in northern Kentucky, told me. He compared the Trump-Massie relationship to a marriage. 'Sometimes you disagree, but when you disagree, that doesn't mean you get divorced.' The twice-divorced president seems to be pining for a breakup, however. He has repeatedly called for Massie's defeat in a primary—'GET THIS 'BUM' OUT OF OFFICE, ASAP!!!' Trump posted on Monday—and two of his top allies have formed a Kentucky political action committee to recruit a GOP challenger in Massie's district. The group began running a 30-second ad last week urging voters to 'fire Thomas Massie.' Although Massie has aggressively raised money off the president's attacks, he professes to not care about the threat to his seat. Trump, Massie likes to boast, earned fewer votes in Kentucky's Fourth Congressional District than he did. 'I'm not worried about losing,' he told me last month in the Capitol. To outsiders, Kentucky's politics can be hard to grasp. In some respects, the state is no different than any other Republican stronghold. Outside of the urban centers of Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky is largely rural and conservative. The state has not backed a Democrat for president or for the U.S. Senate since the 1990s. All but one of Kentucky's six House members are Republican, as are the majorities in both chambers of its legislature. But even as the state has gone decisively for Trump the past three elections, it has twice elected a Democratic governor, Andy Beshear. And the pair of Republicans that voters have sent to the Senate, McConnell and Paul, are as different from one another as any two senators from the same party in the country. McConnell is the institutionalist: a Reaganite and a Kentucky power broker who is now one of the last members of the GOP's old guard still serving in Congress. Paul arrived in Washington as part of the Tea Party wave of 2010, having upset a McConnell-backed front-runner in the primary by campaigning as a spending hawk. Massie won election to the House two years later on the Tea Party banner. 'We've always been a bit all over the place in the candidates that we support,' Rick VanMeter, a strategist from Kentucky who has worked for several Republicans in the state, told me. Although McConnell and Paul vote with Trump more often than they cross him, the president lacks a loyalist in the state's most powerful offices. That will probably change after next year's election to fill McConnell's seat, which Republicans will be heavily favored to win. The two leading candidates, Representative Andy Barr and Kentucky's former attorney general Daniel Cameron, are each stressing their support for Trump's agenda. Another contender, Nate Morris—who has ties to Vice President J. D. Vance and Donald Trump Jr.—joined the race this week. None of them is likely to highlight their connection to McConnell, whose popularity among Kentucky Republicans has plummeted in the years since he steered Trump's tax cuts and the president's three Supreme Court nominees through the Senate. (In fact, McConnell has been America's least popular senator for more than four years, according to one metric.) McConnell blamed Trump for the Capitol riot on January 6 (although he voted to acquit him in the Senate's impeachment trial), and he endorsed Trump only reluctantly last year. Multiple falls and freezing spells have slowed the 83-year-old, contributing to his decision not to seek an eighth Senate term in 2026. As I traveled around Kentucky last week, a few Republicans hailed McConnell's past leadership and the billions in funding that he's secured for the state. But hardly anyone I spoke with was sad to see him go. 'I can't stand him. He's a traitor,' Don Reilly, a Trump backer and former president of the Boone County Business Association in northern Kentucky, told me. The conflict among Republicans has put Kentucky Democrats in the awkward position of rooting for Paul, Massie, and McConnell to hold the line against Trump, with the hope that their opposition could force him to retreat on tariffs or sink the president's megabill. Last week I found a group of Democrats demonstrating outside of McConnell's office, urging him to reject the GOP legislation that would slash Medicaid while extending Trump's first-term tax cuts and boosting spending on immigration enforcement and the Pentagon. They were unimpressed by McConnell's more recent criticism of Trump. 'He gets credit for that, but it's too little, too late,' Leah Netherland, a 69-year-old retiree, told me. 'He is in large part responsible for Trump.' Beshear, whose success in a deep-red state has attracted national notice, seems to be watching the GOP infighting with some bemusement. 'If Senator Paul, Senator McConnell, and I all say that tariffs are a bad idea, it's because they're a really bad idea,' the governor told me after a Juneteenth event in Lexington. Yet Beshear can only cheer them on so much. None of the Republicans battling Trump are centrists; Paul and Massie are opposing the president's bill because it doesn't cut spending deeply enough. 'The bill needs to die, but not for the reasons they're talking about,' Beshear said. The louder voices of discontent in Kentucky, however, are coming from Trump's base, which is heeding the president's call to ramp up pressure on his Republican critics. With McConnell retiring and Paul not up for reelection until 2028, the immediate target is Massie. Trump's backers in Washington and Kentucky are casting about for a serious challenger in Massie's district, and a few state legislators are considering the race, Republicans in the state told me. (One conservative, Niki Lee Ethington, a nurse and former parole officer, has launched a campaign, but she is not well known throughout the district.) Massie's base in northern Kentucky has a large libertarian contingent, and since his first reelection in 2014, he's never won fewer than 75 percent of votes in a primary. But a well-funded, Trump-backed campaign, should one emerge, would be something else entirely. In addition to motivating the president's frustrated base, a challenger could activate local Republicans who believe Massie's refusal to fight for the district's share of federal spending has hurt its bid for needed infrastructure projects. 'They're kind of over Massie's schtick,' VanMeter, the GOP strategist, told me. Gallatin County, which sits along the Ohio River about an hour's drive south of Cincinnati, is the second-smallest of Kentucky's 120 counties. It's one of 21 counties in Massie's congressional district, which stretches nearly 200 miles from the outskirts of Louisville to the state's eastern border. Last week, the quarterly meeting of Gallatin's Republican Party drew just eight attendees, who sat around folding tables at the public library in Warsaw, the county seat. The main order of business was a vote on whether to spend some of the roughly $1,800 that the committee had in its campaign account—a number nearly equivalent to Warsaw's population—on new signage for the party to display at festivals, county fairs, and other events. The bickering between Trump and Kentucky's GOP rebels did not come up, and perhaps that was for the best. Like many party organizations in the district, Gallatin's Republicans are divided over the Trump-Massie feud. The committee's vice chair, Wayne Rassman, told me he had grown frustrated with Massie's opposition to the president. 'He's not listening to the people in his district,' Rassman told me. 'I don't know what made him go off the deep end.' The party treasurer, Donna Terry, said that she used to be for Massie but no longer is. 'I'm a little fed up,' she told me. Both of them said they would probably back a primary challenger next year. The chair of Gallatin's GOP is Jim Kinman, a 51-year-old delivery specialist. He accepted the post reluctantly, explaining to me that the state party had told the county committee that it would be disbanded if it didn't elect a slate of officers. When I caught up with Kinman after the meeting, he lowered his voice before wading into the Trump-Massie fracas. He said that he had never gotten into the 'cultish' dynamic surrounding Trump, whom he did not support in 2016. 'Generally, he's done a good job,' Kinman said of the president. But, he added, 'when the rubber meets the road, I'm going to be with Thomas.' Kinman told me that his loyalty to Massie has caused consternation among his fellow Republicans in the area, but he wasn't budging. 'Thomas legitimately is the only person I trust more than myself,' Kinman said. Whereas many Kentucky Republicans want their representatives to back Trump unconditionally, Kinman said he admired Massie's adherence to his longtime principles. He compared him favorably to Paul, who is often aligned with Massie but has been a bit more open to compromise during the Trump era. (Kinman had nothing nice to say about McConnell, referring to him both as 'a snake' and 'the turtle.') 'We got plenty of people that are for rent,' Kinman said of politicians who too easily trade away their values. 'I'm glad that Thomas is not.' Massie was about to go bowling last weekend when Trump bombed Iran. With the House on recess, he was back in his district for an event with the Northern Kentucky Young Republicans, a group filled with his acolytes. The gathering was a relaxed affair—Massie nursed a Michelob Ultra and wore an untucked turquoise polo shirt—and represented a small show of force for his standing in the area. The organization has hosted other prominent Kentucky Republicans, including each of the major potential GOP contenders to replace McConnell in the Senate. But its president, T. J. Roberts, told me that Massie's event was the best attended. At 27, Roberts is the second-youngest state legislator in Kentucky history and one of several conservatives known as 'Massie's Nasties' for their loyalty to the seven-term representative—and for their occasional hardball campaign tactics. Like many at the bowling alley on Saturday night, Roberts said that he admires Massie and Trump with equal fervor. He told me that he didn't take the president's demand for a primary challenge seriously. 'President Trump is using this as a pressure technique against other members who may sway,' Roberts told me. 'It's a smart move. If I were in his shoes, I'd do the same thing.' As for Massie, Roberts said: 'He's inoculated from primaries.' Yet without impugning Trump, Roberts made sure to remind the crowd of around 80 people of Massie's MAGA credentials. 'There is no one who represents MAGA in Congress better than Thomas Massie,' Roberts said. 'He was MAGA before MAGA was a thing.' Massie began his speech by reminding the crowd of his overall support for Trump, but he tackled their disagreements head on, starting with the impending confrontation with Iran. Touting the resolution that he had introduced to block the president from ordering a unilateral military attack, Massie said, 'I have his respect, and he has mine, but he cannot engage us in a war without a vote of Congress.' The crowd applauded his stance. But unbeknownst to Massie, his argument was all but moot: Soon after he left the stage, Trump announced that U.S. warplanes had already struck Iran's nuclear sites. Like Trump, Massie is a storyteller who revels in sharing behind-the-scenes anecdotes that many politicians prefer either to keep private or to divulge without their names attached. Sass is a core part of his image, both in person and on social media, where he frequently uses the tagline #sassywithmassie. (Earlier this week when Vance wondered whether other vice presidents experienced 'as much excitement' as he has, Massie responded on X: 'Ask Mike Pence about his last month,' referring to January 6.) Read: Republicans still can't say no to Trump During his speech, Massie argued that Trump respected him 'because he knows I'm not a yes man' while also slyly mocking the president in ways that few Republicans dare to do in public. Massie described a House Republican conference meeting last month during which Trump droned on about him for so long that he had assumed the president was talking about someone else. At one point, Trump compared Massie with Paul. 'They're both from Kentucky, you can never get them to vote for anything, and they basically have the same hair,' Trump explained, according to Massie. 'Actually,' the president quickly added, 'I like Massie's hair better.' As the crowd at the bowling alley laughed, Massie quipped, 'Take the wins where you can get them!' Despite Massie's outward confidence about the prospect of a Trump-backed primary challenge, he has made some small moves that suggest a desire to declare a truce. He agreed to withdraw his war-powers resolution after Trump announced a cease-fire between Israel and Iran, at least temporarily abandoning the Democrats who planned to push it forward anyway. And although Massie voted against Trump's megabill when it passed the House last month, he insisted that he was open to supporting its final passage if the Senate makes changes to his liking. 'I'm a gettable vote!' he told me after his speech. (He explained his thinking this way to his supporters: 'I'll vote for a crap sandwich. I just want a pickle and two slices of bread.') I posed to Massie the question that had brought me to Kentucky in the first place: Why does a state that voted so strongly for Trump have such a disproportionate share of the president's GOP critics in high office? He replied by invoking Kentucky's divided status in the Civil War. 'We were a border state,' Massie said. 'We are independent in Kentucky, and I don't think you can take our vote for granted, whether it's representatives or constituents.' The coming months will test if that long-ago legacy still applies. Kentucky has clearly picked a side in the modern political wars, and its Republican voters must decide whether to force their remaining elected holdouts to join them.
