
Analysis: Why Trump's hold on the GOP Congress may threaten its hold on power
Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, two of a bare few congressional Republicans who have sought any independence from Trump, joined a long list of other GOP legislators in recent years who have either retired or been defeated in primaries after crossing Trump, including former Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker and former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
The choice by Tillis and Bacon to announce their retirements during the final throes of debate over the party's budget and tax legislation underlines Trump's success at eliminating almost all tolerance in the party for dissent from him and his agenda.
By stepping away, Tillis and Bacon have made clear that 'their style of Republicanism, that seeks some level of pragmatism and bipartisan compromise, is unwelcome,' says Charlie Dent, a centrist Republican former representative who retired in 2018 after resisting key elements of Trump's agenda. 'Because they have heterodox views on some issues, they feel that they're not particularly welcome within the broader Republican conference.'
But while the twin retirement announcements testify to Trump's success at mastering the GOP, they leave open the question of whether a party reshaped so completely in his image can consistently win majorities in the House and Senate. With the roster of congressional Republicans displaying any separation from the president dwindling, the GOP is testing whether at least 218 House districts and 50 Senate seats will accept candidates offering themselves as unalloyed Trump acolytes.
Few strategists in either party believe that question has a definitive answer. But many on both sides agree that the GOP's path to maintaining its majority in both chambers is narrower if even candidates in swing states and districts feel compelled to endorse the most polarizing aspects of Trump's agenda.
'In a post-Trump world, 100% loyalty is the party litmus test,' said GOP consultant Ken Spain, a former communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. 'There is very little room for nuance, even if it means putting the House and Senate majorities to the test.'
For most of the 20th century, it was common for members of Congress to break from their party's dominant position on key votes — even when that placed them in opposition to a president from their own side. That tendency was visible for years among Republicans from the East and West Coasts, and even more pronounced among the Southern and rural Democrats who became known as 'blue dogs.'
But tolerance for defection on big congressional votes has waned over the past generation. The engine of the change has been the ideological re-sorting of the electorate, which has left each party with a voter base that holds more uniform views on major issues.
In both parties and in both chambers, that has encouraged a transition toward a quasi-parliamentary system, with legislators from each party voting more in lockstep with their own side, and in opposition to the other. When Democrats held a narrow congressional House majority during President Joe Biden's first two years, only one of their members (Maine's Jared Golden) voted against Biden's version of 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — his 'Build Back Better' plan.
In this environment, legislators who break from their side on big votes, as Tillis did on Trump's agenda bill, have faced greater pushback. Republicans sympathetic to Trump's iron-fisted approach to party loyalty point out that liberal interest groups also now regularly attack Democrats who vote too often against their party; during the Biden years, both Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, the two Democratic senators who defected most often, ultimately chose to identify as independents and not to seek reelection in 2024.
But the pressure for conformity from Trump on Republicans dwarfs the coercion that liberal groups can apply to Democrats. 'It's orders of magnitude worse for Republicans,' said Matt Bennett, executive vice president for external affairs at Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. Left-wing interest groups 'are a problem for our moderates without question and occasionally they can beat them or hurt them. But Trump is an extinction-level event for Republican moderates.'
Dent, now the executive director of the Aspen Institute's congressional program, believes independent thinking is under siege in both parties. But he agrees that no source of pressure in the Democratic Party approaches Trump. In fact, Dent argues, no president has ever been as relentless as Trump about crushing internal dissent.
'We haven't seen that, because most presidents … understood that today's dissenter is tomorrow's ally,' Dent said. 'They recognize there's always another vote. But Trump always treats the next vote as the last. Everything is a litmus test with him.'
In a critical shift, the Republican congressional leadership is mostly reinforcing Trump's pressure, Dent noted. Historically, he said, congressional leaders from both parties worried intently about how to protect their members in marginal seats and tried to structure votes that reduced their risk of backlash from swing voters.
But now, Dent went on, the GOP leadership seems more focused on pacifying Trump — and more attentive to the demands of senators and representatives from reliably red areas who fear the president and his allies will launch primary challenges from their right. 'It seems,' Dent said, 'the Republican leadership is more interested in protecting the president than protecting their most vulnerable members.'
Trump doesn't appear totally unaware that Republicans running in swing areas may need some flexibility in their votes. Maine Sen. Susan Collins is the only GOP senator left from the 19 states that voted against Trump in all three of his presidential campaigns and he has not publicly attacked her for voting against the budget bill last week. (She, in turn, did not criticize the bill nearly as sharply as Tillis did.)
Trump has also indulged hardline conservatives in both chambers who have delayed the package to tilt it further to the right, as long as they vote with him in the end — which explains why Trump has promoted a primary challenge against Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who has opposed the measure at each step.
But, as the floor debates in both chambers over the budget bill showed, virtually no congressional Republican feels comfortable criticizing any significant aspect of Trump's agenda, much less voting against it, no matter the effect on their own constituents.
Trump is 'not worried about what a bill means to somebody's home state or district,' said longtime Republican pollster Glen Bolger. 'It's his way or the highway. You cannot cross the president because he will cross you off.'
Over the past several decades, voters' attitudes toward an incumbent president have increasingly shaped how they vote in House and Senate races. But Trump may push that trend even further. His unrelenting demands for loyalty have created an environment in which GOP candidates are running with his logo stamped on them as visibly as if they were one of his hotels or office buildings.
Can Republicans win enough seats with that positioning to consistently control the House and Senate? The party's electoral performance since Trump's emergence gives them some reason for optimism, particularly in the Senate.
Trump has won 25 states in all three of his presidential campaigns, and Republicans incredibly now control all 50 of those states' Senate seats, up from 42 in 2017. Democrats have high hopes next year of contesting one of the 50 (the North Carolina seat that will become open with Tillis' retirement announcement). But until they can compete for more, in places such as Ohio, Iowa or Texas, Republicans will have the easier path to a Senate majority, notes Kyle Kondik, managing editor for the Sabato's Crystal Ball election newsletter of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.
At first glance, the trends in House races may seem equally encouraging for a Trump-stamped GOP. Trump won 230 House districts in 2024 (the same number he did in 2016), which would provide the GOP a relatively comfortable majority by modern standards if their House candidates also won those districts. But it may be harder for a uniformly Trumpist GOP to hold the House than the Senate. In the more difficult electoral climate of 2020, Trump only won 202 House districts, and even last year, he won about 40 of the districts he carried only by single-digit margins. To Kondik and other analysts, that suggests Democrats could recapture enough of those seats to flip the majority in a more favorable national environment — which widespread public disapproval of the 'big beautiful bill' might help create for them.
'Basically, by all the vulnerable Republican members voting for the bill, you are making it easier for the opposition to nationalize your race, which is what Democrats are going to want to do,' Kondik said.
By falling into line behind Trump so reliably, Republicans in more competitive areas (apart from maybe Collins) have denied themselves one of the most common arguments legislators from such places have historically used to win reelection: that they will support their party's agenda when it helps their constituents and oppose it when it doesn't. Dozens of House Republicans whose districts face big losses from the budget bill's Medicaid and clean energy cuts voted for it anyway.
Democrats see that as a huge vulnerability, particularly in the House seats they plan to contest. 'They make a ton of noise, but at the end of the day they are not going to step out of line with Trump and DC leaders, and for the districts we are competing in that is the worst type of thing you can do,' said Courtney Rice, communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Dent agreed the pattern is a grave risk for the GOP majority. Pressuring swing district Republican representatives to fall in line on every major issue 'is a recipe to elect a Democratic House,' he said. 'Trump might want to get used to that now and get ready for all the subpoenas and aggressive oversight that will come with it.'
Bolger said he long believed that, too, but now has doubts. 'I'm a guy who always said you've got to win independent voters to win. I don't know if that's true anymore,' he said. Legislators who 'show independence' from Trump, Bolger said, risk depressing turnout among his core supporters, which could offset any gains they might see among independent voters by distancing themselves from the president. 'That's a math thing they are all going to be doing in those swing seats,' he said.
No matter the national environment next year, the Senate map will make recapturing that chamber very tough for Democrats. And the sorting out of the electorate — combined with the growing sophistication of gerrymandered Congressional districts — makes it highly unlikely that Democrats in 2026 can win as many House seats as the opposition party captured in other midterms characterized by a backlash against the sitting president's agenda (including 1994, 2006, 2010 and 2018).
But more than enough swing seats remain in play to give Democrats a very plausible chance of overturning the GOP's historically narrow House majority. In the provisions of their budget bill, Republican leaders made extraordinarily few concessions to the political needs of their representatives in those marginal seats (or vulnerable senators such as Collins and Tillis). They placed much higher import on cramming in as many of Trump's priorities as possible and meeting the demands of the hardcore conservatives in safe seats who constitute a much larger share of GOP legislators in both chambers.
If that increases the odds some of those swing-district Republicans lose next fall —endangering the GOP majority in the House and conceivably, though less likely, the Senate — that seemed a price Trump and Congressional leaders were willing to pay. 'They want to get as much as they can in the bill,' Dent said, 'and these guys are going to be the collateral damage.'
In the long arc of Trump's career, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' may stand as yet another transaction in which he claims the rewards and others around him pay the price.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Biden aides pushed for early debate to show off Biden's ‘strength,' expose Trump's ‘weakness,' book says
Senior advisors to then-President Joe Biden reportedly urged him to hold a debate against President Donald Trump as early as possible in an attempt to highlight Biden's "leadership" and Trump's "weakness," according to a new book. The book, "2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America," is set for release Tuesday and claims that Biden's team dismissed concerns about his age during the 2024 election cycle. The book, authored by Josh Dawsey of the Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of the New York Times and Isaac Arnsdorf of the Washington Post, says Biden senior advisors wrote up a memo advocating an initial spring debate, followed by a potential second one in early September after Labor Day. Biden Family Misled Public, Concealed Details On Son Beau's Cancer Diagnosis, New Book Says This strategy would allow Biden to take on Trump before early voting in battleground states kicked off, set the terms of the debate most advantageous for Biden and highlight Biden's "leadership" in contrast to Trump's, according to a memo on the matter. "By holding the first debate in the spring, YOU will be able to reach the widest audience possible, before we are deep in the summer months with the conventions, Olympics and family vacations taking precedence," Biden's senior advisors reportedly wrote in an April 15, 2024, memo, published by Politico Playbook. "In addition, the earlier YOU are able to debate the better, so that the American people can see YOU standing next to Trump and showing the strength of YOUR leadership, compared to Trump's weakness and chaos." Read On The Fox News App Biden's First Public Remarks Since Cancer Diagnosis Honor Gold Star Families Even so, the book reports that some Biden aides were hesitant about an early debate, with some even advocating that Biden shouldn't debate Trump at all. Specifically, the book cites a Biden donor who pressed the White House in May 2024 to find a reason to pull Biden from the debates, after the donor reported being "alarmed" by Biden's behavior at a Chicago fundraiser. Meanwhile, the Trump White House said the debate backfired on Biden, and instead, shed light on Biden's own weaknesses. "The only highlight from the debate was Joe Biden's inability (to) form a complete sentence," White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a Monday statement to Fox News Digital. "American voters got a firsthand look at Biden's weakness, his campaign in chaos, and what it looks like when real leader is missing from the White House." "Unfortunately for the Democrats, no adviser or so-called 'strategic' move could save their incompetent candidates and terrible policies from President Trump's historic, landslide victory," Rogers said. A spokesperson for Biden did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. Biden Says He Could 'Beat The Hell Out Of' Authors Of New Book Arguing His Cognitive Decline Biden and Trump ultimately did face off in a debate on June 27, 2024 – an event that prompted Biden to exit the election in July 2024 and led to Vice President Kamala Harris to take on Trump in November 2024. "2024" is one of several books that have been released in 2025 detailing Biden's mental deterioration while in office and how Trump won the election. Another example is the book "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again," released May article source: Biden aides pushed for early debate to show off Biden's 'strength,' expose Trump's 'weakness,' book says
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk says he's formed a new political party. But it's not clear if he actually has
Elon Musk has said that he's formed a new political party, but it's unclear what steps — if any — he's taken to do so, or how the effort might affect upcoming elections. Musk has not yet released any additional information. Spokespeople for Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, didn't immediately comment Monday. While there are many recent federal elections filings that reference the Tesla and SpaceX CEO or his companies, Musk himself has even gone on his social media platform batting down at least one filing as fake. The possible new political party marks another development in the rift between Musk and President Donald Trump over the Republican's sweeping tax cuts law, which the tech billionaire has called 'insane.' The fissures between Trump and his one-time top surrogate and Department of Government Efficiency cost-cutter-in-chief have exposed not only the fragile nature of relations between two of the country's most visible personalities but also the potential political consequences of disagreeing with the priorities of either man. The squabble could be particularly costly for Musk, whose businesses rely on billions of dollars in government contracts, and whose publicly traded company Tesla has taken a market hit. Here's what we know — and what we don't — about Musk's new political party: Musk says he's formed the America Party Musk said Saturday on X that he had formed the America Party 'to give you back your freedom.' He'd teased the move for days, threatening to make his own party if 'this insane spending bill passes' Congress. He spent part of Sunday taking feedback from X users about the party, which he indicated he'd use to get involved in the 2026 midterm elections. Some new Musk-related parties seem fishy The Federal Election Commission database has teemed with newly formed political entities that make reference either to Musk or one of his companies, but there are details that cast doubts on their authenticity. As of Monday afternoon, there were multiple political parties listed in the Federal Election Commission database formed in the hours since Musk's Saturday X post, with versions of 'America Party' or 'DOGE' or 'X' in the name, or Musk listed among people affiliated with the entity. But none appeared to be real, listing contacts for the organization as email addresses such as ' wentsnowboarding@ ″ or untraceable Protonmail addresses. Several listed Vaibhav Taneja — the chief financial officer of Tesla — as a contact for the party, along with a Texas address for a building affiliated with X. Several pointed to a home in Maryland. When a Musk supporter posted screengrabs of one of the formation documents to X, Musk took to X Sunday to say that the 'filing is false and has been reported as such to the FEC.' What could Musk do with a new party? While indicating earlier this year that he might play less of a role in elected politics moving forward, Musk — the world's richest man who spent at least $250 million supporting Trump in the 2024 election — could use a new party to try to do the opposite. New political parties are often formed but typically struggle to pull any significant support away from the Republican and Democratic parties. But Musk could impact next year's elections determining control of Congress if he is willing to spend significant amounts of money — through a new party or existing ones. During the tax cuts debate, Musk pledged to work toward supporting primary challengers for members of Congress who backed the bill. He also said he would support Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican targeted by Trump for opposing the measure. What has Trump said about Musk's new party? Trump on Sunday called Musk's proposition 'ridiculous,' going on to tout 'tremendous success with the Republican Party.' Trump later posted on social media that he was 'saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK,' saying the only thing third parties are good for 'is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS.' What does it take to make a new political party? There are official steps, like setting up a tax identification number, bank account and treasurer, who can be held liable if future paperwork isn't filed properly. According to the FEC, any new party that intends to operate in federal elections has to register with the commission 'when they raise or spend money over certain thresholds in connection with a federal election.' Federal campaign finance laws and regulations govern how political parties can take in money. Parties have to file regular reports with the FEC. But even a federally designated political party has to gain access to ballots state by state, making the entire process, according to University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl Tobias, 'complicated and expensive.' ___ Kinnard can be reached at
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US revokes ‘terrorist' designation for Syrian president's former group HTS
The United States will revoke its designation of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) as a foreign terrorist organisation (FTO) as Washington softens its approach to post-war Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad's government last year. The decision, which takes effect on Tuesday, comes as part of US President Donald Trump's broader strategy to re-engage with Syria and support its reconstruction after more than a decade of devastating conflict. 'This FTO revocation is an important step in fulfilling President Trump's vision of a stable, unified, and peaceful Syria,' US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement Monday. HTS had been designated as a 'terrorist' group by the US since 2018 due to its former ties to al-Qaeda. The group emerged out of the al-Nusra Front, once al-Qaeda's official branch in Syria, but formally severed those ties in 2016 after HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa declared the group's independence. Al-Sharaa, who led the opposition forces that removed al-Assad in a lightning offensive last December, has since become Syria's president. He has launched what many experts have described as a charm offensive aimed at Western powers, including meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron and, most recently, Trump in Riyadh in May. The Trump administration and the European Union have since lifted sanctions on Syria. 'In line with President Trump's May 13 promise to deliver sanctions relief to Syria, I am announcing my intent to revoke the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation of al-Nusrah Front, also known as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), under the Immigration and Nationality Act,' Rubio said. 'Tomorrow's action follows the announced dissolution of HTS and the Syrian government's commitment to combat terrorism in all its forms.' HTS was dissolved in late January, with its forces folded into the official Syrian military and security forces. Damascus welcomed the US decision as a step towards normalisation. In a statement, Syria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the delisting of HTS was a 'positive step toward correcting a course that previously hindered constructive engagement'. The ministry added that it hoped the move would 'contribute to the removal of remaining restrictions that continue to impact Syrian institutions and officials, and open the door to a rational, sovereign-based approach to international cooperation'. Meanwhile, HTS remains under United Nations Security Council sanctions, which were imposed in 2014 over its previous affiliation with al-Qaeda. Al-Sharaa also remains under UNSC sanctions, which can only be removed by the Council itself. Al-Sharaa is reportedly preparing to attend the UN General Assembly in New York this September.