The Senate, Once Insulated From Trump, Has Remade Itself in His Image
'Thom Tillis could have won re-election,' said Mr. Flake, who became ambassador to Turkey during the Biden administration after leaving the Senate because of repeated clashes with Mr. Trump over the president's character and truthfulness. 'He would have had to change into somebody he isn't — and I felt the same.'
Mr. Tillis's decision not to run for re-election after crossing the president is just the latest example of how profoundly Mr. Trump has reshaped the Senate. Republicans who showed the temerity to challenge Mr. Trump are out, and devotees are in, with Mr. Trump's endorsement looming as a decisive factor in Senate primaries.
Gone are multiple independent-minded Republican senators who were willing to question the president's actions or assert legislative prerogatives. Mr. Tillis was the latest to succumb, after finding himself on the receiving end of a Trump tirade and primary threat over his opposition to the party's signature tax cut and domestic policy bill.
He has plenty of company.
Along with Mr. Flake, the Republican casualty list from the first Trump tenure includes former senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio, Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Mitt Romney of Utah and Ben Sasse of Nebraska.
Relations with Mr. Trump weren't the sole reason those men bowed out. The difficulty of navigating a MAGA electorate in their home states, the endless demands of fund-raising and frustration with the inability to get much accomplished in Congress all played a role. But Mr. Trump was a major factor, considering that four of them — Senators Burr, Romney, Sasse and Toomey — were among the seven Republicans who voted to convict Mr. Trump on impeachment charges arising out of the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol.
Now, the seats of the departed have been assumed by avowed Trump devotees such as Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri, who has become a point man for the White House, and Senators Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty, both archconservatives from Tennessee. In addition, Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania — all Democrats — were defeated and replaced by Trump acolytes Bernie Moreno, Tim Sheehy and David McCormick respectively, deepening the MAGA hold on the chamber.
Mr. Tillis acknowledged that the Senate is no longer a place that celebrates political independence and if he had it do over again, he might not.
'The Thom Tillis who made the decision to run in 2013 probably would not have made the same decision,' he said in an interview.
The evolution of the Senate was vividly illustrated when the chamber took the sweeping domestic policy and tax-cut measure produced by the House and made it more conservative. That is the opposite of how things traditionally go in Congress, where the courtly Senate has more often been the moderating 'cooling saucer' for the House's hotly partisan tea.
Republicans in the Senate, where members are usually jealous protectors of their power over federal spending, also acceded to Mr. Trump's demand to cancel $9 billion already approved by Congress, even though they conceded that the White House was not providing the level of detail they were seeking about the cuts.
Just two Republicans, Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, rejected the spending clawbacks. These days, they are often the only two senators in play as potential Republican defectors, though Mr. Tillis often presents himself as a wild card. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former party leader, who has shown disdain for Mr. Trump, has also cast a few votes in opposition to the president's policies and nominees.
After Mr. Tillis decided to support Emil Bove, a Trump appeals court nominee accused by a Justice Department colleague of encouraging resistance to court rulings, only Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski opposed him. Mr. Trump has erased all but a few doubters from the Senate in his second incarnation as president.
'During the first administration, there was a contingent of Republicans who stood up to him in various ways,' said Ira Shapiro, a former senior Senate aide and an author of three books on the Senate. 'Once he succeeded in this remarkable political comeback, he has basically unified the party in slavish loyalty to him.'
Mr. Shapiro noted that as recently as 2022, when the Senate was under Democratic control, the Senate was able to notch a series of bipartisan legislative accomplishments on gun safety, public works and marriage equality — a type of bipartisanship that would seem almost impossible now.
Even Senator John Thune, the South Dakota Republican who took over as majority leader this year after getting crosswise with Mr. Trump in the past, has developed a close working relationship with the president as he delivers on the Trump agenda. In a recent social media post, the president flattered the majority leader as 'the very talented John Thune, fresh off our many victories over the past two weeks and, indeed, 6 months.'
Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who has fought with Trump in the past, said it shouldn't be surprising how tightly aligned Senate Republicans are with Mr. Trump.
'The president is very strong in the conference,' Mr. Graham said about his fellow Republicans. 'He's very popular with the base. Republican senators usually help Republican presidents. That's the way the system works. If you look at the history of how party majorities serve their presidents, you will find a lot of consistency there.'
Referring to President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Graham added, 'It's what L.B.J. was known for.'
But the Senate was also known for strong personalities and formidable politicians who were eager to assert their power and saw themselves as equal partners to the president, with the ability to shape legislation and the right to reject nominees they deemed unfit or unqualified. Over the past few decades, the Senate has become a much more partisan institution, and both parties have seen power shift to the White House.
Mr. Tillis noted that Democrats with an independent streak, such as Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have also left the Senate — though they were not so much run out by the leaders of their party as they were bowing to the reality that they would have a hard time winning re-election. He said he worried that the state of the Senate would discourage capable candidates in the future and further reduce the chamber's historic influence.
'I think it has a more of a dampening effect on those who come behind us,' Mr. Tillis said. 'You do get to a point to wonder if the Senate can be the backstop that it has been in the past.'
Mr. Flake said he shared that view.
'I love the Senate,' he said. 'It typically forces the parties to work together. It pains me to see it the way it is. We are taking out what should be a huge, huge balance of power.'
But he also said it was not tenable for him to find a way to remain, even as supporters encouraged him to try to fight it out.
'I could have said I didn't mean those things I said about President Trump or that his behavior was growing on me,' Mr. Flake said. 'No job is worth that. You have to face your kids and your grandkids.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Exclusive: Trump Cuts to Hit Rural America Like 'a Tsunami,' Democrat Warns
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Representative April McClain Delaney warned that President Donald Trump's cuts to programs like Medicaid, as well as NPR and PBS, are going to hit rural America like a "tsunami" in an interview with Newsweek. Delaney's Maryland congressional district contains some of the areas that could be hit hardest by Trump's policies. It spans from the state's rural western panhandle, which she says could bear the brunt of new rescission cuts, to the Washington, D.C., suburbs, home to federal workers who have lost their jobs amid the mass firings of federal workers. She first won election to the Sixth District last November, defeating Republican Neil Parrott by about 6 percentage points in a light-blue district that has been competitive in recent elections. Delaney spoke with Newsweek about how she believes cuts in the Republican rescission package and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would affect constituents in rural areas in the district and across the country. "When you look at all of these funding freezes on our government employees on our national parks, but also Medicaid, SNAP, and then start looking at some of the other rescissions that it's just a tsunami that's about to hit rural America," Delaney said. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Associated Press/Canva How PBS, NPR Cuts Will Affect Rural America Funding cuts for public media, such as PBS and NPR, which were included in a rescissions package passed by Congress earlier in July, could have devastating impacts on rural Americans, Delaney said. Republicans argued that funding for these programs was a waste of taxpayer dollars and have accused the networks of pushing left-leaning programming. Critics, however, say public funding was a lifeline to communities that relied on their local NPR affiliates for news or PBS for free children's programming. "When you look at the community that really relies on trusted news, one of the last trusted bastions of news is local news," Delaney said. These cuts may have an impact on Amber Alerts and Emergency Broadcast System alerts, she said. Recent flooding in Western Maryland's Allegany County—a rural, conservative county inside Delaney's district—underscores the importance of having robust local radio news, she said. "We had floods in Allegany County, and luckily, because of the emergency alerts, they kept the kids in the school. They didn't release them early. And as the rising waters went, I think, nine feet in 45 minutes, the kids went from the first floor, the second floor to the third floor, luckily were rescued and no one was hurt," she said. "When you think about how alerts are really facilitated by our broadcast stations, particularly these rural communities, it's a pretty big deal." Delaney, who spent much of her career advocating for children in media at nonprofits like Common Sense Media, said cuts to PBS will have consequences for children across the country. "I really look at how this funding will impact rural America in terms of broadcast stations and in particular educational programming for our kids. PBS is really the only free programming, educational programming that these kids receive," she said. "While you might hear some of my GOP colleagues [say] you can stream Sesame Street. Well, I hate to say this, our most disadvantaged kids in rural America, they can't afford to have a streaming Netflix account, much less have rural broadband." Delaney predicted there would be a "significant outcry" from rural Americans if their local stations go under as a result of the cuts and that Democrats would eye the restoration of this funding if they retake control of Congress in the midterms. The loss of these local stations would be a "loss of our community heart," she said, noting that they have historically had community obligations and public interest standards. "I still think there's that residue reporting on the games from the football game at the high school or talking about the local fairs or the rodeo that's going to be in town or what have you," she said. "There is something that's a big community builder. In these smaller stations in rural and even bigger suburban America." Cuts to Medicaid are another challenge facing rural America, she said, noting that one in seven families in her district relies on the program for health care. "What are you going to do in the long term in terms of rural health care and rural hospitals potentially closing? she said. "But also, you know, are all these premiums going to go up? Right, and what's the impact?" How Trump's Agenda Is Affecting Federal Workers Maryland's Sixth District also encompasses parts of the D.C. suburbs and is home to more than 35,000 government workers who may be affected by cuts to the federal bureaucracy as part of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). So far, at least 260,000 federal workers have left their jobs since Trump returned to office in January, whether they were fired, retired early, or took a buyout, according to Reuters. Delaney said many of them are still looking for jobs and have reached out to her office. Health care is a key concern for these federal workers, she said. "Many of them are concerned about the long-term, how they're going to have health care, in addition to being able to find new jobs," she said. There are concerns that these "well-educated and well-adjusted" workers may be taken to the private sector or even leave the country as they seek new employment, she said. "There are other big concerns about workforce development and how are we going to look at maybe figuring out ways that they can retool some of their skills. I do think that many of our state governments might be able to fill in the gap for some of these workers. But, their concerns are, of course affordability, figuring out their next step and interestingly enough, I've started hear more about AI," she said. Delaney Slams 'Foolish' Foreign Aid Cuts Foreign aid cuts have been "one of the most foolish acts" of the Trump administration, Delaney said. "Our world is on fire right now and we have traditionally always been the one that has stepped in to help, whether it's vaccinations, whether it is feeding women and children, whether it was displacement during times of war. But there is something in soft diplomacy," she said. "What that means is that you are a trusted beacon of light. You are a source that people can depend upon around the world. And you do have more stability and peace when you have that." She warned that there is a "lack of trust" in the United States on the global stage right now, and that other countries, such as China, are "zooming in to fill that void." She described this foreign aid as the "cheapest part of our defense budget." "It is probably some of the most foolish cuts I've ever seen in my life, and it's going to impact us globally, but that's going to come to haunt us domestically as well," she said. Delaney on Trust in Government Delaney also said her work in Congress is focused on restoring trust in the government amid a period of heightened "anger." "It's really impacting the trust that people have in if our country can function and if our county can feel like the people who are elected officials are trustworthy," she said. Elected officials need to take the time to "understand why there's anger" and why people feel like they have not been heard or met in the moment. "My biggest concern and my biggest priority in Congress is to find ways to reestablish that trust, that trust with the American people, that trust on a community level," she said. "And I don't think it is a top-down—I think it's going to be a bottom-up within our communities building back, you know, across our communities and understanding in our elected officials." She said she plans to ask her constituents for their views on the issues so that her vote can reflect their thoughts. "Our world is crazy, but the last thing I'm going to say is I believe that we're going be OK. It's going to be choppy, it's going to be hard, but that we are going to swim through this, but it's a difficult ride at the moment," she said.
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump's 'Largest Deal Ever' Faces Japan Diet in Crisis
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. When President Donald Trump revealed that his administration had struck a "massive" trade and investment deal with Japan, he described it as "completed"—but it must still pass the Japanese parliament, called the Diet, which is riven with political turmoil. The deal will likely require—at least in part, if not in full—approval by the Diet, where Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's coalition government very recently lost its majority in the upper chamber, having already become the minority in the lower chamber in 2024. A Japanese lawmaker in the lower house, who chairs a key policy committee of the left-leaning Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP), the main opposition, told Newsweek they are closely scrutinizing the Trump deal to assess whether they are satisfied with it. They will then decide how to proceed. Ishiba, of the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), still the largest party in the Diet, said he would stay on to see through the implementation of the U.S. trade deal, rather than cave to calls for his immediate resignation and create a political vacuum. Analysts said that opposition parties may seek to criticize Ishiba and the deal, but the alternative of blocking it in the Diet could backfire and lead to higher tariffs. Newsweek has contacted the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for comment. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba in the East Room at the White House on February 7, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba in the East Room at the White House on February 7, 2025 in Washington, It Matters Trump has said he will make deals that benefit both sides, hailing his unique abilities to do so. But the intense "America First" messaging surrounding Trump's deals poses a challenge for U.S. trading partners. They must balance Trump's demands against their own national interests, economic needs, and views of voters, while projecting a degree of strength and independence to show they are securing gains and not merely surrendering to Washington. The Japanese deal, whose advantages to the U.S. Trump has heavily emphasized, highlights the potential vulnerability of these agreements to domestic politics. Trump's Japan Trade Deal The deal was struck ahead of Trump's August 1 deadline, when, in a letter to Ishiba, he had said Japanese imports would face a 25 percent tariff in the U.S. if negotiations failed to bear fruit. Trump had previously questioned the strategic U.S.-Japan partnership, including a long-standing security agreement with its key East Asian ally, citing what he said was an unfair set of trading terms because the Japanese market was too closed off to Americans. Trade talks between the two sides had been stuck on imports of American rice in particular. But negotiations continued, and Trump revealed the deal in a post on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday, July 22. Trump said Japan had agreed "at my direction" to invest $550 billion into the U.S.—spanning energy, semiconductors, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, and shipbuilding—but that 90 percent of the profits from these would be kept by the U.S. He also said Japan would open up to American car and truck exports, rice and other agricultural products, and more goods. Japan would still face a 15 percent tariff, Trump said, but U.S. businesses will have a zero tariff. Among the specific measures in the deal are a Japanese commitment to immediately increase rice imports from the U.S. by 75 percent and a Japanese purchase of 100 Boeing aircraft, according to a White House fact sheet. Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba attends a press conference at the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) headquarters on July 21, 2025 in Tokyo, Japan. Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba attends a press conference at the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) headquarters on July 21, 2025 in Tokyo, Japan. Philip Fong - Pool/ Getty Images Japan's CDP Will 'Carefully Scrutinize' Trump Deal Kazuhiko Shigetoku, a lawmaker in the Diet's lower house from the opposition CDP, told Newsweek that the deal means "the uncertainty of the economic outlook has eased." "However, in terms of the perspective of the national interest, we need to carefully scrutinize the content of the agreement to determine whether it is satisfactory and how it will affect the Japanese economy," Shigetoku said. "We will determine our future actions based on explanations from the government at the Diet and other meetings. Although the need for congressional approval is unclear at this stage, we believe that it is important to maintain and expand free trade." Mixed Reactions in Japan Ishiba's recent election loss was driven in large part by voter frustration with rising prices while wage growth is slow. His weakened minority government must now push through a hard-fought trade agreement, one that Trump has touted as a major win for the U.S. "Early reactions among Japanese lawmakers have been mixed, with the Ishiba administration touting the deal as a success and members of the opposition claiming it is bad for the Japanese economy," Kristi Govella, Associate Professor at the University of Oxford and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told Newsweek. "For Japanese people, trade negotiations with the U.S. have been seen as a litmus test of the current government's leadership ability, so politicians are currently fighting to control the narrative about how good this deal really is for Japan." Kazuto Suzuki, professor at the Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Tokyo, Japan, and director of the Institute of Geoeconomics at International House of Japan, said the Trump deal was "well received by both the ruling and opposition parties." "Given that many lawmakers did not expect the Ishiba administration to succeed in reaching an agreement, the fact that it was achieved came as a surprise," Suzuki told Newsweek. "Moreover, while it was considered difficult to lower tariffs on automobiles and automobile parts, the fact that they were reduced to 15 percent is highly regarded. "However, this does not compensate for the major defeat in the Upper House election on July 20, and criticism of Prime Minister Ishiba is growing." He added: "It is unlikely that the Diet will reject this agreement. If it were to reject it, higher tariffs would inevitably be imposed, which would benefit no one." Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba delivers his policy speech during a plenary session at the lower house of parliament on January 24, 2025, in Tokyo, Japan. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba delivers his policy speech during a plenary session at the lower house of parliament on January 24, 2025, in Tokyo, National Interest Govella said opposition parties "have a great deal of incentive to criticize the trade deal and to capitalize on the weakness of the Ishiba government," but "actually blocking the deal's approval could backfire badly." Higher tariffs "would have significantly worse impacts on the Japanese economy and on Japanese people who are already feeling the effects of inflation," she said. Japanese voters have "generally been skeptical about the opposition's ability to lead" after their experience with the Democratic Party of Japan from 2009 to 2012, she continued. "So if the current opposition parties are perceived to be acting against Japan's national interest by blocking this deal, they could lose the supporters they've recently gained," Govella said. What People Are Saying President Trump posted to Truth Social: "We just completed a massive Deal with Japan, perhaps the largest Deal ever made … This is a very exciting time for the United States of America, and especially for the fact that we will continue to always have a great relationship with the Country of Japan." Prime Minister Ishiba told reporters, per The Wall Street Journal: "The government was determined to protect national interests," adding that the deal "will lead to Japan and the U.S. working together to create jobs, produce high-quality goods, and contribute to fulfilling various roles in the world going forward." What's Next Japanese lawmakers are scrutinizing the trade deal with the U.S.. They are unlikely to block it should they be called to vote on some or all of its components, though the Ishiba government no longer has a majority in either house of the Diet, complicating its passage.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal.' New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was 'thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.' "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. 'That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,' the judge wrote. 'In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.' Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. 'These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment,' Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement. ____ Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman in Washington contributed.
