Trump's 'Beautiful' effect? Thom Tillis exits from Congress; what this reveals about fate of GOP moderates
Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced Sunday that he would not seek re-election in 2026, a day after voting against the 'Big Beautiful Bill' backed by US President Donald Trump.
The 64-year-old is the latest in a series of Senate moderates to step aside in recent years.
"In Washington over the last few years, it's become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species," Tillis said in a statement posted on X.
Trump, meanwhile, remarked Tillis' exit as a "great news" and said, "For all cost cutting Republicans, of which I am one, REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected.
Don't go too crazy! We will make it all up, times 10, with GROWTH, more than ever before."
Does the exit reflect a wider issue?
For moderates in the GOP, Tillis' retirement underscores a stark reality -- breaking with Trump can mean political isolation or an early exit. Trump loyalists wasted no time framing Tillis' decision as a victory. 'Don't Cross Trump,' declared Jason Miller, a top Trump adviser, signaling that defiance of the president comes at a steep price.
"He received 77.3 million votes, 312 electoral votes, and he overwhelmingly won the popular vote. The voters gave him a mandate to implement a specific agenda, and they want everyone to get behind his efforts!" Miler said.
Tillis, who often tried to balance loyalty to Trump with his own policy convictions, found himself repeatedly squeezed. From his skepticism about Trump's defense secretary pick to his votes on domestic policy, Tillis increasingly became a target for Trump's ire, and potential primary challengers.
His final months in office, as he hinted, may be his freest, as he no longer faces the constraints of re-election politics.
"I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit and representing the great people of North Carolina to the best of my ability," he said in the statement.
Does Tillis' exit ultimately signal that the GOP's center is hollowing out? As moderates retreat or are forced out, Trump's grip on the party tightens, leaving little room for dissent or the kind of bipartisan deal-making that once defined Senate veterans like Tillis. The 2026 elections will likely show just how far that transformation has gone.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Very wealthy people': Trump teases TikTok buyout, China fumes over possible takeover, ‘very soon' - The Economic Times Video
In a bold new twist to the TikTok saga, US President Donald Trump revealed on Fox News that a group of 'very wealthy people' in the United States is prepared to buy the Chinese-owned app TikTok. Trump teased that the buyers' identities will be revealed within two weeks. He also noted that the potential acquisition would likely require approval from China's President Xi Jinping, though Trump said he believes Xi 'will probably do it.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Over 170 environmental agency staff sign dissent letter on Trump policies
A group of Environmental Protection Agency employees on Monday published a declaration of dissent from the agency's policies under the Trump administration, saying they undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment. More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign. The latter figure includes 20 Nobel laureates. The letter represents rare public criticism from agency employees who could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June. "Since the Agency's founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished (its) mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration's focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterisation of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise," the letter read. Agency spokespeople did not immediately respond Monday to messages seeking comment. Employees want the EPA get back to its mission I'm really sad. This agency, that was a superhero for me in my youth, we're not living up to our ideals under this administration. And I really want us to, said Amelia Hertzberg, an environmental protection specialist at the EPA who has been on administrative leave since February from the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, while the administration works to close down her department. Hertzberg's work focused on the most vulnerable groups impacted by pollution: pregnant and nursing people, young children and babies, the elderly, people with preexisting and chronic health conditions and people living in communities exposed to higher levels of pollution. That wasn't supposed to be controversial, but it's become so in this political climate, she said. Americans should be able to drink their water and breathe their air without being poisoned. And if they aren't, then our government is failing, she said. Berg, who also directed the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH from 2003-2011, said the dissent isn't motivated by partisan criticism. He said the employees hope it will help the EPA get back to the mission for which it was established which only matters if you breathe air and drink water". The letter outlines what the EPA employees see as five main concerns: undermining public trust; ignoring scientific consensus to benefit polluters; reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities; dismantling the Office of Research and Development; and promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being. EPA has cut funding and rolled back federal regulations Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fuelled by coal and natural gas. Zeldin began reorganising the EPA's research and development office as part of his push to slash their budget and gut their study of climate change and environmental justice. And he's seeking to roll back pollution rules that an Associated Press examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275 billion every year. People are going to die, said Carol Greider, a Nobel laureate and professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who also signed the letter. She described last week's East Coast heat wave as evidence of the ways people are feeling the effects of climate change. And if we don't have scientists at the EPA to understand how what we do that goes into the air affects our health, more people are going to die, she added. Berg said the declarations of dissent from both the NIH and EPA employees are noteworthy because they represent scientists speaking out as their careers are on the line. Even non-agency employees have to consider whether the government will withdraw research funding. Greider, asked about fears of repercussions or retaliation, said she's living the repercussions of everything. She regularly meets with graduate students who are worried about pursuing scientific careers as labs lose funding. It's a long-term problem if we aren't supporting the next generation of scientists, she said: "That's decades worth of loss.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Showdown in court: Trump's bid to use 18th-century law for mass deportations faces crucial test
A federal appeals court will hear arguments today on whether President Trump can use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify mass deportations, a case likely headed to the Supreme Court read more A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments today on whether President Donald Trump can invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify mass deportations, a case likely headed to the Supreme Court. One of President Trump's most controversial claims of executive power came in March, when he issued a proclamation invoking an 18th-century law to justify rounding up and deporting dozens of immigrants he alleged were members of a Venezuelan street gang. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to a report by The New York Times, the Alien Enemies Act has been used only three times in US history, and only during wartime. Trump's use of the law has sparked serious questions about whether his actions align with the statute's actual text, added the report. For over three months, courts nationwide have struggled to answer whether President Trump overstepped legal boundaries in pursuing one of his key policy goals: mass deportation of immigrants. On Monday, the legal fight reaches a critical stage as the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans hears arguments over Trump's use of t he Alien Enemies Act. The case is expected to revisit legal points already raised in lower courts by both the Trump administration and attorneys representing the Venezuelan men targeted under the policy. However, this hearing could prove decisive, likely becoming the first case on the issue to reach the Supreme Court for a full review of whether Trump's use of the centuries-old law was lawful. About Alien Enemies Act Enacted in 1798 when United States faced potential war with France, the Alien Enemies Act grants the president broad authority to detain and expel nationals from hostile foreign powers, but only during a declared war, invasion, or what the law calls a 'predatory incursion.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD From the outset, the Trump administration has taken an unorthodox approach to the statute, using it to target dozens of Venezuelan men accused of ties to the Tren de Aragua street gang, which President Trump has labeled a foreign terrorist organisation. Trump and his advisers have argued that the men are not simply gang members, but operatives acting in coordination with the Venezuelan government. Their presence in the US, they claim, amounts to an invasion by a hostile state. According to the NYT report_,_ the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the Venezuelan men, has dismissed the administration's claims as baseless. ACLU lawyers argue that mass migration is not an invasion and say there's no clear evidence linking their clients, many with no criminal records, to the Venezuelan government. Most federal courts so far have agreed, ruling that Trump misused the Alien Enemies Act and that the migrants do not pose a military threat. However, two courts have backed the administration, citing the president's broad authority over foreign affairs, especially involving a group labeled a terrorist organisation, added the report. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The ACLU faces tough odds in the Fifth Circuit, one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. Regardless of Monday's outcome, the case is widely expected to head to the Supreme Court. Unusual path to Fifth Circuit The case reached the Fifth Circuit through an unusual route. In April, the ACLU filed an emergency lawsuit after learning the Trump administration planned to deport Venezuelans held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Texas under the Alien Enemies Act. The ACLU argued it was a tactic to sidestep court orders in other states blocking similar deportations. When a district judge didn't act quickly, the ACLU appealed to the Fifth Circuit and then the Supreme Court, warning the men faced imminent removal to El Salvador. The Supreme Court temporarily halted the deportations, citing due process violations but avoiding the broader legal question. Last month, it upheld the freeze and sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit, instructing it to rule on two key issues: whether Trump's use of the Act was lawful and what notice immigrants must receive before removal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies
