Category: Politics

Democrats are accustomed to losing in rural America — especially to Donald Trump. Now they’re hoping the president’s own policies might prove to be the leverage they need going into next year’s midterms.

The party faces immense challenges in farm country that have overwhelmingly voted Republican for decades and turned out in droves on the president’s behalf three times. But over the past year, those same communities have borne the brunt of his tariff agenda, health care center closures, lingering inflation and cuts to public lands programs.

Where Trump sees an “A++++++” economy, large percentages of both Republican and Democratic voters blame his decisions for stubbornly high prices for groceries and housing, according to recent polling from POLITICO and Public First.

Democrats have a long way to go in rebuilding trust with rural voters. But conversations with more than a dozen current and former Democratic lawmakers, party officials and political strategists suggest they also feel the urgency of tapping into the discontent being generated by Trump’s agenda.

The party is trying to replace wishful thinking with a new shoe-leather strategy in rural communities where it has long lacked a presence and is deploying unhappy farmers in media campaigns. If Democrats mean to retake Congress in the midterms or have a shot at the White House in 2028, their candidates don’t necessarily need to sweep rural counties — they just need to eat into the margins Trump was getting, which were frequently north of 80 percent of the vote.

“We have a unique opening because of all that’s happening with this administration,” said Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.), whose district includes significant rural and farming interests. Farmers and rural voters “might be listening in a more unique way than they maybe have ever in the past. And we need to walk through that door.”

Democrats have previously dedicated relatively modest amounts of money, staff and advertising to rural counties and districts outside of swing states. But after a string of off-year victories last month, House Democrats have launched their first-ever rural outreach program, an eight-figure campaign that will fund efforts to hire staffers for candidates, mobilize voters and run ads focusing on the cost of living.

Even some Republicans acknowledge the GOP can’t take rural communities for granted.

“Right now, the farm community is with [Trump]. I think the thing that Republicans should worry about is enthusiasm, in getting out and actually voting,” Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said. “It’s one thing to be supportive, it’s another thing to actually go vote on Election Day.”

Joe Manchin, a Democrat-turned-independent former senator and governor, won six statewide races running as a Democrat in solid-red West Virginia. He said the party needs to focus on finding candidates who can relate to rural Americans by focusing on key issues — “common sense shit,” he explained, like fiscal responsibility and affordability.

For example, candidates like Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill won their gubernatorial elections last month by distancing themselves from the Democratic Party’s brand and zeroing in on high prices.

“They’re the kind of the centrist Democrats you need,” Manchin said. “They’re the only ones who are going to win in these tough areas.”

The tariff play

The politics that defines much of the division between urban and rural voters emerged in the late 1980s, as post-Carter Democrats pushed policies that the latter saw as detrimental to agricultural and manufacturing sectors. That left rural voters especially primed for Trump’s brand of economic populism: He won 64 percent of them in 2024, the best performance of any presidential candidate in decades and beating his own 2016 margin.

“One of the reasons we were in such a negative place with rural voters is we sort of ceded that ground, stopped showing up, stopped talking to these folks, and really relied on the urban centers,” Libby Schneider, deputy executive director of the Democratic National Committee, said. “And we saw how that gamble failed in 2024 when folks in urban centers stayed home.”

Then, in April, Trump began his chaotic tariff rollout.

While farmers had stomached Trump’s tariffs in the first term — and voted to bring him back in 2024 — their economic position is weaker and the tariffs are much higher and more expansive this time around.

Farmers and businesses experienced whiplash as tariff deadlines came and went, confusing people throughout the food supply chain about how they would be impacted. Fertilizer and fuel costs rose and markets for exports like soybeans dried up. Some groups, including cattle ranchers who have long allied with Trump, publicly broke with the president’s trade agenda when he suggested importing Argentinian beef to lower food prices.

While most rural voters are not farmers, agriculture is a critical piece of the rural economy, making farm policy one of the primary ways federal policymaking affects those communities. Some voters may support tariffs in theory in the hopes they could revitalize the labor market and prompt fairer trade terms for farm goods, but polling suggests they view Trump’s plans as too arbitrary to achieve those goals.

A majority of people surveyed in an October POLITICO poll (53 percent) supported avoiding tariffs on imports if that meant keeping costs low for consumers.

Spanberger, the Virginia governor-elect, won in part by focusing her messaging in rural counties on tariffs and tying the economic discomfort voters were feeling to Trump and the Republican Party. She outperformed Kamala Harris in 48 of Virginia’s 52 rural localities.

National Democrats, excited by Spanberger’s success, have made their own moves: Beyond the DCCC’s eight-figure investment into rural voters and voters of color and the new farmer-focused ad campaigns, a caucus of more than 100 moderate Democratic lawmakers recently released a policy agenda that includes passing a farm bill, expanding rural broadband funding and federal funding for local food purchases.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the Trump administration’s policies and said “supporting rural Americans has been a key focus,” which is why the administration has sought to use tariffs to open up new export markets for farmers.

The RNC isn’t fazed either.

“Rural America won’t suddenly be tricked into thinking elite Democrats stand for their beliefs and values. The DNC spending a few bucks won’t fool rural Americans into thinking Democrats have touched grass,” RNC spokesperson Delanie Bomar said.

One Big Beautiful Mess

Trump’s signature tax-and-spending law provides Democrats with another opening to contrast their pitch against Republicans.

Rural health care centers across the country have already shuttered in response to the law’s Medicaid cuts, which will disproportionately hit communities where hospitals are few and often primary employers. Low-income Americans are quickly learning they may no longer qualify for federal food aid — even as most of the tax breaks the GOP has touted will benefit the wealthy.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, who chairs the Democratic Governors Association and represents a ruby red state, recently called the law “a slap in the face to rural America.”

And POLITICO’s November poll revealed that voters are more likely to rely on Democrats when it comes to health care policy. More than 40 percent of those surveyed said they trusted Democrats to bring down health care costs for ordinary Americans, compared with 33 percent who said they trusted the GOP.

The message for Democrats is “wrapped up and with a nice, tidy bow on it in the Big, Beautiful Bill,” said Christopher Borick, a political science professor who runs the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion. “It’s cuts to your health care, it’s cuts to rural hospitals. It’s cuts to SNAP benefits, and it’s just so tidy and neat for Democrats to go there.”

The strategy seems to be working. In a heavily Republican congressional district in Tennessee, Democrat Aftyn Behn beat expectations and outperformed Harris’ 2024 margins in a bid to unseat GOP Rep. Matt Van Epps this month.

Behn’s ads largely focused on affordability and the fallout from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which she called the “one big BS bill.”

That tactic resonated with voters in an off-cycle election and will only gain steam: Americans’ health care premiums are set to skyrocket ahead of the 2026 midterms after Republicans declined to extend Covid-era “enhanced” subsidies of Affordable Care Act plans in their big bill.

Will history repeat itself?

Still, some political experts question how much Democrats can loosen the GOP’s hold on rural America.

The president’s first-term tariff war also hammered farmers, but their political ties to Republicans hardly wavered at the time. Democrats in 2024 used roughly the same playbook they’re seeking to capitalize on now, arguing that Trump’s proposed policies would increase the cost of living and that his tariffs would impose a new tax on the middle class — but they failed to gain enough ground with rural voters, enabling Republicans to win a trifecta.

Many voters are wary of Democrats’ support for free trade agreements over the last 30 years, which hollowed out rural job opportunities and allowed the unchecked growth of corporate power, said Anthony Flaccavento, executive director of the Rural Urban Bridge initiative, a progressive rural organizing group.

“Both parties have really betrayed rural America, but the Republican Party got very, very good at seeing people and expressing solidarity and saying, ‘You’re right to be angry,’” he explained.

Part of winning is showing up and listening, say Democrats like Rep. Shontel Brown of Ohio, who is weighing a bid for the top spot on the House Agriculture Committee. Brown, who hails from a wholly urban district, has traveled to other parts of her state and to Florida on a listening tour to hear directly from farmers.

“We’ve lost a lot of trust in rural America, so showing up and listening is half the battle, but then we have to be able to present an alternative,” she said in a recent interview. “We as Democrats have a real opportunity to make the case for policies that lower costs and make it easier for farmers, families and the entire food supply chain producers as well.”

​Politics

Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia, announced in November 2025 that he will relaunch the group after it disbanded following his prison sentence in 2023.

Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other crimes committed during the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump granted clemency to the over 1,500 defendants convicted of crimes connected to the storming of the Capitol.

Trump did not pardon Rhodes – or some others found guilty of the most serious crimes on Jan. 6. He instead commuted Rhodes’ sentence to time served. Commutation only reduces the punishment for a crime, whereas a full pardon erases a conviction.

As a political anthropologist I study the Patriot movement, a collection of anti-government right-wing groups that include the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Moms for Liberty. I specialize in alt-right beliefs, and I have interviewed people active in groups that participated in the Capitol riot.

Rhodes’ plans to relaunch the Oath Keepers, largely composed of current and former military veterans and law enforcement officers, is important because it will serve as an outlet for those who have felt lost since his imprisonment. The group claimed it had over 40,000 dues-paying members at the height of its membership during Barack Obama’s presidency. I believe that many of these people will return to the group, empowered by the lack of any substantial punishment resulting from the pardons for crimes committed on Jan. 6.

In my interviews, I’ve found that military veterans are treated as privileged members of the Patriot movement. They are honored for their service and military training. And that’s why I believe many former Oath Keepers will rejoin the group – they are considered integral members.

Their oaths to serving the Constitution and the people of the United States are treated as sacred, binding members to an ideology that leads to action. This action includes supporting people in conflicts against federal agencies, organizing citizen-led disaster relief efforts, and protesting election results like on Jan. 6. The members’ strength results from their shared oath and the reverence they feel toward keeping it.

Who are the Oath Keepers?

Rhodes joined the Army after high school and served for three years before being honorably discharged after a parachuting accident in 1986. He then attended the University of Nevada and later graduated from Yale Law School in 2004. He founded the Oath Keepers in 2009.

Oath Keepers takes its name from the U.S military Oath of Enlistment, which states:

“I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States …”

Informed by his law background, Rhodes places a particular emphasis on the part of the oath that states they will defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

He developed a legal theory that justifies ignoring what he refers to as “unlawful orders” after witnessing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Following the natural disaster, local law enforcement was assigned the task of confiscating guns, many of which officers say were stolen or found in abandoned homes.

Rhodes was alarmed, believing that the Second Amendment rights of citizens were being violated. Because of this, he argued that people who had military or law enforcement backgrounds had a legal duty to refuse what the group considers unlawful orders, including any that violated constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to bear arms.

In the Oath Keepers’ philosophy, anyone who violates these rights are domestic enemies to the Constitution. And if you follow the orders, you’ve violated your oath.

Explaining the origin of the group on the right-wing website “The Gateway Pundit” in November 2025, Rhodes said: “… we were attacked out of the gate, labeled anti-government, which is absurd because we’re defending the Constitution that established the federal government. We were labeled anti-government extremists, all kinds of nonsense because the elites want blind obedience in the police and military.”

Rebuilding and restructuring

In 2022, the nonprofit whistleblower site Distributed Denial of Secrets leaked more than 38,000 names on the Oath Keepers’ membership list.

The Anti-Defamation League estimated that nearly 400 of the names were active law enforcement officers, and that over 100 were serving in the military. Some of these members were investigated by their workplaces but never disciplined for their involvement with the group.

Some members who were not military or law enforcement did lose their jobs over their affiliation. But they held government-related positions, such as a Wisconsin alderman who resigned after he was identified as a member.

This breach of privacy, paired with the dissolution of the organization after Rhodes’ sentencing, will help shape the group going forward.

In his interview with “The Gateway Pundit,” where he announced the group’s relaunch, Rhodes said: “I want to make it clear, like I said, my goal would be to make it more cancel-proof than before. We’ll have resilient, redundant IT that makes it really difficult to take down. … And I want to make sure I get – put people in charge and leadership everywhere in the country so that, you know, down the road, if I’m taken out again, that it can still live on under good leadership without me being there.”

There was a similar shift in organizational structure with the Proud Boys in 2018. That’s when their founder, Gavin McInnes, stepped away from the organization. His departure came after a group of Proud Boys members were involved in a fight with anti-fascists in New York.

Prosecutors wanted to try the group as a gang. McInnes, therefore, distanced himself to support their defense that they weren’t in a gang or criminal organization. Ultimately, two of the members were sentenced to four years in prison for attempted gang assault charges.

Some Proud Boys members have told me they have since focused on creating local chapters, with in-person recruitment, that communicate on private messaging apps. They aim to protect themselves from legal classification as a gang. It also makes it harder for investigators or activist journalists to monitor them.

This is referred to as a cell style of organization, which is popular with insurgency groups. These groups are organized to rebel against authority and overthrow government structures. The cell organizational style does not have a robust hierarchy but instead produces smaller groups. They all adhere to the same ideology but may not be directly associated.

They may have a leader, but it’s often acknowledged that they are merely a figurehead, not someone giving direct orders. For the Proud Boys, this would be former leader Enrique Tarrio. Proud Boys members I’ve spoken to have referred to him as a “mascot” and not their leader.

Looking ahead

So what does the Rhodes interview indicate about the future of Oath Keepers?

Members will continue supporting Trump while also recruiting more retired military and law enforcement officers. They will create an organizational structure designed to outlive Rhodes. And based on my interactions with the far-right, I believe it’s likely they will create an organizational structure similar to that of the cell style for organizing.

Beyond that, they are going to try to own their IT, which includes hosting their websites and also using trusted online revenue generators.

This will likely provide added security, protecting their membership rolls while making it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to investigate them in the future.

Alexander Lowie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The midterm elections for Congress won’t take place until November, but already a record number of members have declared their intention not to run – a total of 43 in the House, plus 10 senators. Perhaps the most high-profile person to depart, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, announced her intention in November not just to retire but to resign from Congress entirely on Jan. 5 – a full year before her term was set to expire.

There are political dynamics that explain this rush to the exits, including frustrations with gridlock and President Donald Trump’s lackluster approval ratings, which could hurt Republicans at the ballot box.

Rather than get swept away by a prospective “blue wave” favoring Democrats – or possibly daunted by the monumental effort it would take to survive – many Republicans have decided to fold up the beach chair and head home before the wave crashes.

As of now, two dozen Republican House members have either resigned from the House or announced their intent to not run for reelection in 2026. With only two exceptions – Republicans in 2018 and 2020 – this is more departures from either party at this point in the election calendar than any other cycle over the past 20 years.

There is also growing concern within the House Republican caucus that Greene’s announcement is a canary in the coal mine and that multiple resignations will follow.

As a political scientist who studies Congress and politicians’ reelection strategies, I’m not surprised to see many House members leaving ahead of what’s shaping up to be a difficult midterm for the GOP. Still, the sheer numbers of people not running tells us something about broader dissatisfaction with Washington.

Why do members leave Congress?

Many planned departures are true retirements involving older and more experienced members.

For example, 78-year-old Democratic congressman Jerry Nadler is retiring after 34 years, following mounting pressure from upstart challengers and a growing consensus among Democrats that it’s time for older politicians to step aside. Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker who will turn 86 in March, is also retiring.

Sometimes, members of Congress depart for the same reasons other workers might leave any job. Like many Americans, members of Congress might find something more attractive elsewhere. Retiring members are attractive hires for lobbying firms and corporations, thanks to their insider knowledge and connections within the institution. These firms usually offer much higher salaries than members are used to in Congress, which may explain why more than half of all living former members are lobbyists of some kind.

Other members remain ambitious for elective office and decide to use their position in Congress as a springboard for another position. Members of the House regularly retire to run for a Senate seat, such as, in this cycle, Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan. Others run for executive offices, including governor, such as Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina.

But some are leaving Congress due to growing frustration with the job and an inability to get things done. Specifically, many retiring members cite growing dysfunction within their own party, or in Congress as a whole, as the reason they’re moving on.

In a statement announcing his departure in June, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., mused that “between spending another six years navigating the political theater and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with my family,” it was “not a hard choice” to leave the Senate.

What’s unique about 2026?

In addition, there are a few other factors that can help explain why so many Republicans in particular are heading for the exits leading up to 2026.

The shifting of boundaries that has come with the mid-decade redistricting process in several states this year has scrambled members’ priorities. Unfamiliar districts can drive incumbents to early retirement by severing their connection with well-established constituencies.

In Texas, six Republicans and three Democrats – nearly a quarter of the state’s entire House delegation – are either retiring or running for other offices, due in part to that state’s new gerrymander for 2026.

All decisions about retirement and reelection are sifted through the filter of electoral and partisan considerations. A phenomenon called “thermostatic politics” predicts that parties currently in power, particularly in the White House, tend to face a backlash from voters in the following election. In other words, the president’s party nearly always loses seats in midterms.

In 2006 and 2018, for example, Republican members of Congress were weighed down by the reputations of unpopular Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Trump. Republicans had arguably even greater success in midterm elections during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Currently, 2026 looks like it will present a poor national environment for Republicans. Trump remains highly unpopular, according to polls, and Democrats are opening up a consistent lead in the “generic ballot” question, which asks respondents which party they intend to support in the 2026 midterms without reference to individual candidates.

Democrats have already been overperforming in special elections, as well as the general election in November in states such as New Jersey and Virginia, which held elections for governor. Democrats are on average running 13 points ahead of Kamala Harris’ performance in the 2024 election.

As a result, even Republicans in districts thought to be safe for their party may see themselves in enough potential danger to abandon the fight in advance.

Retirement vs. resignation

One final, unique aspect of this election cycle with major consequences is not an electoral but an institutional one.

House conservatives are quietly revolting against Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership style. That members may be frustrated enough not just to retire but resign in advance, leaving their seats temporarily vacant, is a notable sign of dysfunction in the U.S. House.

This also could have a major impact on policy, given how slim the Republicans’ majority in the lower chamber is already. Whatever the outcome of the midterms in November, these departures clearly matter in Washington and offer important signals about the chaos in Congress.

Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The top 5 interview moments of 2025 | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics

Minnesota has been the white whale for Republicans in the Trump era. And 2026 could be the year they finally break through — if President Donald Trump and one of the most prolific peddlers of conspiracy theories about the 2020 election don’t sink their chances.

Republicans are growing optimistic about their chances of unseating Democratic Gov. Tim Walz next year, as he seeks a historic third term. But Trump’s increasingly caustic attacks on Walz and disparagement of Minnesota’s Somali community — and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s entrance into the gubernatorial race — could hurt Republicans’ chances of regaining ground in the state, some party strategists argue.

“When the president comes in with a flamethrower and just throws that type of rhetoric, there’s no oxygen, and there’s no space for the Republican to offer suggestions and to be thoughtful in that space, because the rhetoric of the president just paints them into a corner,” said Michael Brodkorb, a former deputy chair of the Minnesota GOP who backed the Democratic ticket in 2024.

Republicans have insisted they can be competitive statewide in the blue-leaning Minnesota ever since Trump lost Minnesota by less than 2 points in 2016. But since then, winning the state has beguiled both the president — who faced a 7-point loss in 2020 and a 4-point loss in 2024 — and Republicans in other statewide races, including two fairly comfortable wins for Walz in 2018 and 2022.

Still, Republicans see an opportunity to win back the Minnesota governor’s seat for the first time since 2006 by hammering Walz, who is running despite scrutiny into his oversight of state benefits and a star turn as the Democratic vice presidential nominee that put him in the crosshairs of Republicans across the country.

At the same time, Trump has also used the arrests of some Somali immigrants in federal fraud cases to broadly characterize the state’s Somali population as criminals — leaning on his trademark use of divisive rhetoric that some Republicans worry will fall flat.

That risk, insiders warn, could be exacerbated if Lindell, a Trump ally, wins the Republican nomination.

“We’d be cooked,” said Dustin Grage, a Minnesota Republican strategist. “I’d be moving to Florida very shortly. We would lose pretty badly if Mike Lindell were to get the nomination.”

Those close to the president strenuously disagree, arguing the state remains on the map. House GOP Whip Tom Emmer, the most high-profile Minnesota Republican and an ally of the president, said he’s spoken to Trump about the governor’s race and is confident that any of the 13 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination could defeat Walz.

“We should be able to beat Tim Walz with a dog,” Emmer told POLITICO in an interview.

The White House declined to comment. At a rally in North Carolina on Friday, Trump praised Lindell and said he “deserves to be the governor of Minnesota.”

Walz faces a tricky path to reelection, with no Minnesota governor winning three consecutive terms in the state’s history. That’s been made more difficult by several investigations during his tenure leading the state that revealed a ring of alleged fraudsters siphoning money from public programs. In 2022, federal prosecutors charged dozens of people for pocketing $250 million from a federally funded child nutrition program overseen by the Minnesota Department of Education during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The massive scope of the fraud allegations (the Justice Department called it the “largest Covid-19 fraud scheme in the United States”) triggered a state audit that found the Walz administration “did not effectively exercise its authority” to prevent the fraud.

In September, federal prosecutors charged eight people with defrauding a Minnesota housing and health benefits program of millions of dollars by submitting inflated and fake reimbursement claims. Six additional people were charged for participating in the scheme in December. That same month, a defendant previously charged in the pandemic program fraud pleaded guilty to attempting to steal $14 million from a Minnesota health care program that offers services to children with autism.

Prosecutors have broadened their inquiry into benefits fraud in the state to investigate billions of dollars in flagged billings of 14 public programs supported by Medicaid.

In response to a request for comment to a Walz spokesperson, Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chair Richard Carlbom said in a statement that Walz “heads into reelection with a record focused squarely on working people and kitchen-table issues.”

“While the GOP clown-car primary remains consumed by infighting and loyalty tests for Donald Trump, Minnesota families are falling behind as Republicans unleash higher grocery prices, skyrocketing health care bills, and giant tax breaks for billionaires,” Carlbom said. “Minnesotans see the difference — a governor delivering for working families, or Republicans delivering loyalty to Donald Trump and a Washington agenda that puts billionaires first.”

In recent weeks, Trump has ramped up his efforts to link Walz to the abuse of government programs — while using incendiary rhetoric directed at the governor and the Somali community. In a social media post on Thanksgiving, he called Walz “seriously retarded” and accused Somali refugees of seeking to “prey” on Minnesotans. And at an early December rally in Pennsylvania, he again denigrated the Somali community while discussing “the great big Minnesota scam with one of the dumbest governors ever in history.”

Emmer, who said he spoke with Trump about the governor’s race as early as July, said he believes the president recognizes an opportunity in Walz’s vulnerability. “I think the president knows that Tim Walz is the weakest he’s ever been in his political career,” Emmer said.

Former Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Daudt, a Republican, said the fraud investigations are part of the risk for Walz in seeking a third consecutive term.

“If you can lay out a case that, ‘Well, you’ve been elected now for eight years, and you haven’t fixed these problems,’ or ‘You haven’t accomplished what you said you were going to’ … it kind of makes it an easier case to say, ‘Maybe it’s time for someone new,’” Daudt said.

But the rhetoric Trump is using to highlight the fraud may reframe the issue to the detriment of Walz’s Republican opponent, said Brodkorb,the former party official. He believes Minnesotans are eager to weigh ideas on immigration policy and how to tackle abuse of public programs.

“The problem is when the president comes in and says things like, ‘Everyone in the entire Somali community is garbage,’” Brodkorb said.

Emmer, who adamantly defended Trump’s approach and his rhetoric attacking both Walz and the Somali community, credited him with shining a light on the state.

“If he hadn’t said it exactly the way it is, and if he hadn’t been so out there direct, guess what? Nobody would have covered it,” Emmer said.

The barrage directed at Walz and the state — including attacks from Trump allies, targeted probes from Cabinet officials and an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis — underscores the governor’s newfound national prominence since campaigning as former Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in last year’s presidential race.

Walz has emerged as a vocal critic of the second Trump administration, prompting a feud between the two. After a Democratic lawmaker was killed by a gunman and a second was seriously injured earlier this year, Trump said he would not “waste time” calling the “whacked out” governor.

Walz’s growing national profile both makes him a high-profile target in the 2026 midterms worthy of trying to defeat, GOP strategists say — but Trump’s intense focus on the race could also backfire given the state’s political makeup.

“Having Donald Trump being active in the race for a particular Republican may not be helpful, but it would be extremely helpful to raise the attention on Tim Walz and his record here in the state,” Daudt said.

And if Trump’s ends up throwing his weight behind Lindell — who conspired with Trump in 2020 to advance false claims that the presidential election was stolen — Republicans worry that could give Walz a clearer path to reelection.

“If [Lindell] is the candidate, that’s what the election will be about,” Daudt said. “It’ll definitely be easier for Walz to make the election about Trump if Mike Lindell is the candidate. No question.”

Trump, who continues to claim the 2020 election was rigged, touted Lindell’s efforts to reverse the election results at the North Carolina rally, and empathized with how Lindell “suffered” as a result.

“He was just a guy that said, ’This election was so crooked, it was so rigged.’ He fought like hell,” Trump told his supporters.

Lindell’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Some Minnesota Republicans hope that the party will back a more moderate candidate that can highlight Walz’s vulnerabilities.

But Emmer said candidates should do what they can to win the endorsement of the hundreds of highly engaged party activists who serve as delegates at the party’s nominating convention next year.

“I’m going to tell you the way you win this race. You go run your race to get an endorsement,” Emmer said. “As soon as you are the endorsed Republican candidate, you have won the primary in August, you are going to win the governor’s race.”

​Politics

After five years in the United States Senate, Republican Tommy Tuberville wants Alabamians to know one thing above all else as he embarks on a gubernatorial bid: his time as a college football coach.

That his campaign website is framed by a banner reading “Coach Tuberville for Governor” speaks to how much the GOP is relying upon local sports heroes to compete for offices up and down the ballot as the pivotal midterm elections approach.

Athletes and coaches are playing in some of the highest-profile races of the 2026 cycle, with control over Congress up for grabs in a year expected to favor Democrats. In Georgia, former University of Tennessee head coach Derek Dooley is hoping to capitalize on his athletic experience — and his father’s football fame in Athens — to break through in a competitive Republican primary and unseat Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff. Former NFL kicker Jay Feely is running for Congress in Arizona. And former MLB star Mark Teixeira is a front-runner for Rep. Chip Roy’s open House seat in Texas.

Tuberville, who once led the Auburn University football team, still goes by “coach” around the Capitol.

Athletes-turned-politicians are hardly a new concept: former Rep. Jack Kemp brought his football background to the halls of Congress and the 1996 GOP presidential ticket; Jesse Ventura leveraged his WWE fame to win Minnesota’s governorship; and two-time NBA champion Bill Bradley served New Jersey in the Senate for nearly two decades and mounted a bid for the White House.

But at a moment of deep distrust and disdain for elected officials in Washington, both parties are looking for outsider candidates and athletes are increasingly fitting that mold. And the trend of leveraging sports fame for political gain has been supercharged in the era of Trump, who once owned a pro football team. The president has routinely campaigned alongside athletes and coaches, including Notre Dame hero Lou Holtz — whom he later awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom — and professional wrestling star Hulk Hogan. He backed Tuberville in his Senate run and endorsed former University of Georgia star running back Herschel Walker in his unsuccessful Senate bid in 2022.

This trend has been especially prevalent in the southeast, where college football culture reigns. Tuberville’s successful entrance into politics has inspired a new crop of football figures to make their own bids as Republicans in the SEC corridor, and many of them have consulted directly with the coach-turned-legislator about how to replicate his win.

Tuberville used his gridiron fame in Alabama to rocket to the Senate in 2020 without any experience in the public eye off the football field.

“I spent a lot of time in public life going to a lot of alumni meetings, shaking hands, marketing our program, selling recruits on the road, dealing a lot with parents — and it’s no different than being in politics,” he said in an interview.

The party in Alabama isn’t making an active push to recruit former sports stars to run for office, but that hasn’t stopped other like-minded college athletes and sports figures from running their own plays for office.

“I think there’s a natural bend towards these figures,” said Alabama Republican Party Chair John Wahl, who worked on Tuberville’s 2020 Senate campaign. “They already have some name I.D., they have fundraising capabilities, but they’re seen as political outsiders and people who are going to represent the average, everyday American.”

Dooley, who is running for Senate with the backing of Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, approached Tuberville for some coaching prior to his run.

“The people that have called me, they ask: what is this? What do I have to do? And what does it entail? You know, first of all, being a senator, they all want to know first about campaigning. They want to know the ins and outs of it and what you have to do with raising money,” Tuberville said.

Dooley’s campaign did not make him available for an interview for this article.

Earlier this year, former University of Alabama star quarterback AJ McCarron launched his own bid for lieutenant governor — opening the possibility that, alongside Tuberville, the state could have been helmed by figures representing rival local football programs. He ended his bid on Wednesday, announcing he would no longer seek Montgomery’s second-in-command post “in order to accept a new career opportunity in football.”

Paul Finebaum, the lauded college football commentator, passed on a run for Tuberville’s seat earlier this month. He, too, spoke with the senator about the job as he was exploring a run, according to Tuberville. So did fellow Auburn Tigers basketball coach Bruce Pearl, who similarly opted against a bid after retiring from coaching.

But there will still be plenty of ‘Bama pride left: Sen. Katie Britt’s (R-Ala.) husband Wesley Britt starred for the Crimson Tide before playing three seasons in the NFL, a fact she was sure to highlight in her ads during her 2022 run for Senate.

This same trend is playing out in other parts of the country too. Michelle Tafoya, the longtime NFL sideline reporter, is inching toward mounting a bid as a Republican in Minnesota’s open Senate race. Meanwhile, Democrats have yet to significantly capitalize on that same trend in the deep-red part of the country to challenge the Republicans’ regional hegemony.

That isn’t to say they don’t have a bench elsewhere: former Rep. Colin Allred leaned hard on his bio as an NFL player in his unsuccessful 2024 Senate bid in Texas (he’s now running for his old seat). Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healy played a few years of professional basketball in Europe before returning to the Bay State to launch her political career. Rep. Sharice Davids (D-Kansas) is a former professional mixed martial arts fighter.

“Democrats tend to recruit a lot of ex-military or CIA people. They seem to think that’s more in their wheelhouse,” said long-time Democratic strategist James Carville.

“I think as people become increasingly turned off by ‘politics of Washington, ’you’re going to find these parties are going to be looking for different kinds of candidates,” he continued. “It might be a good idea to look for more opportunities like this.”

Nearly three-quarters of American adults are “frustrated” by the Democratic Party, an October Pew Research Center poll found. Sixty-four percent of Americans held similarly negative views of Republicans. That dissatisfaction makes the appeal of an outsider candidate who hasn’t touched politics before even stronger.

“I think people are ready for change,” said Amanda Litman, the co-founder and president of the progressive candidate recruitment organization Run for Something. “Often the best folks to shepherd that change are people who are new to the system, whether that’s new to politics or new to community engagement.”

“I wouldn’t say athletes is, like, a specific profile we’re looking for, because you have to be really in it to solve a problem,” she continued, adding that wants to see “more artists, I want more musicians, and I want more nurses and teachers to run for office. I want more people who really care and who maybe come with a fresh perspective.”

While outsider candidates may prove a balm to those fiery sentiments, the public is not entirely sold on athletes wading into a political space. A late 2024 poll conducted by the Associated Press and the NORC at the University of Chicago showed that 26 percent of adults approve of athletes speaking out about political issues. 36 percent of respondents said they explicitly disapprove of athletes specifically sharing their political opinions.

“When you’re famous in athletics, everybody likes you,” Carville said. “In politics, as soon as you open your mouth, half the people hate you.”

​Politics

Wyoming GOP Rep. Harriet Hageman on Tuesday announced her campaign for Senate, hoping to succeed retiring Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis in next year’s election.

The Wyoming Republican is a strong supporter of President Donald Trump, and with his backing she helped oust Republican then-Rep. Liz Cheney, a vocal critic of Trump’s, in the 2022 primary.

“This fight is about making sure the next century sees the advancements of the last, while protecting our culture and our way of life,” Hageman said in her launch video. “We must dedicate ourselves to ensuring that the next 100 years is the next great American century.”

Lummis announced she would not seek reelection last week, saying she felt like a “sprinter in a marathon” despite being a “devout legislator.” Hageman, who had been debating a gubernatorial bid, was expected to enter the Senate race.

Hageman touted her ties to the president in her announcement video, highlighting her record of support for Trump’s policies during her time in the House and vowing to keep Wyoming a “leader in energy and food production.”

“I worked with President Trump to pass 46 billion in additional funding for border security, while ensuring that Wyomingites do not pay the cost of new immigration. We work together to secure the border and fund efforts to remove and deport those in the country illegally,” she said.

President Trump on Tuesday said Hageman has his “complete and total” endorsement, calling her “highly respected” in a post to Truth Social.

“I know Harriet well, and she is a TOTAL WINNER!” Trump said. He added that Hageman “WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN.”

Trump won the deep-red state by nearly 46 points in last year’s election, and Hageman herself was reelected by nearly 48 points, according to exit polling.

Still, Hageman bore the brunt of voters’ displeasure earlier this year during a town hall. As she spoke of the Department of Government Efficiency, federal cuts and Social Security, the crowd booed her.

​Politics

Former Sen. Ben Sasse announced on Tuesday that he has been diagnosed with stage 4 metastatic pancreatic cancer.

The Nebraska Republican shared the news on X, writing in a lengthy social media post that he had received the diagnosis last week.

“Advanced pancreatic is nasty stuff; it’s a death sentence,” Sasse said. “But I already had a death sentence before last week too — we all do.”

The two term senator retired in 2023 and then went on to serve as president of the University of Florida. He eventually left the school to spend more time with his wife, Melissa, after she was diagnosed with epilepsy.

Sasse continued to teach classes at University of Florida’s Hamilton Center after he stepped down as president. He previously served as a professor at the University of Texas, as an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services and as president of Midland University.

Sasse on Tuesday shared that he and his wife have only grown closer since and opened up about his children’s recent successes and milestones.

“There’s not a good time to tell your peeps you’re now marching to the beat of a faster drummer — but the season of advent isn’t the worst,” Sasse said. “As a Christian, the weeks running up to Christmas are a time to orient our hearts toward the hope of what’s to come.”

Sasse said he’ll have more to share in the future, adding that he is “not going down without a fight” and will be undergoing treatment.

“Death and dying aren’t the same — the process of dying is still something to be lived. We’re zealously embracing a lot of gallows humor in our house, and I’ve pledged to do my part to run through the irreverent tape,” Sasse said.

​Politics

The fatal stabbings of filmmaker and actor Rob Reiner and his wife, the photographer and producer Michele Singer Reiner, have sparked widespread grieving. This tragedy, discovered on Dec. 14, 2025, is also increasing the public’s interest in what happens when killers could inherit wealth from their victims. That’s because Nick Reiner, their son, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder four days after the couple’s deaths at their Los Angeles home.

What’s the ‘slayer rule’?

All states have some form of a slayer rule that prevents killers from inheriting from their victims. While the rules differ slightly from state to state, they always bar murderers from profiting from their own crimes.

Simply put, if you’re found guilty of killing someone or plead guilty to their murder, you can’t inherit anything from your victim’s estate.

In some states, this might go beyond inheritance and apply to jointly held property, insurance policies and other kinds of accounts.

Most of these slayer rules, including California’s, apply only to “felonious and intentional” killings, meaning that they don’t apply if you accidentally kill someone. Although there doesn’t have to be a guilty verdict by a judge or a jury, or a guilty plea from the accused, there must be some finding by a criminal or civil court of an intentional and felonious killing.

These rules, known as slayer rules, have a long history in the United States. They became more prominent following an 1889 murder case in New York state, in which a 16-year-old boy poisoned his grandfather to get an inheritance that was written into his grandfather’s will.

How often are slayer rules invoked?

It’s hard to say for sure. As far as we know, nobody’s tried to keep track.

Slayer rules come into play whenever someone who would otherwise inherit assets from an estate is convicted of or found liable for murder, and the slayer is entitled to inherit from the victim.

These tragic cases almost always involve murders committed by relatives. Many of the high-profile ones have been tied to murders that occurred in California.

Famous disinherited murderers include Lyle and Erik Menendez, the Californians known as the Menendez brothers. In 1996, a jury found them guilty of the first-degree murder of their parents, José and Mary Louise “Kitty” Menendez. The Menendez brothers’ parents, who were killed in 1989, had a fortune that today would be worth more than $35 million.

The brothers, who became eligible for parole but were denied it in 2025, have been in prison ever since.

Once there has been a finding of an intentional and felonious killing, even if the slayer is later released on parole – or even if they serve no prison time at all – they would still not inherit anything.

In practical terms, that means if one or both of the Menendez brothers were to win parole in the future, they would still be ineligible to inherit any of their parents’ wealth upon their release from prison.

California’s slayer rule also meant that salesman Scott Peterson, who was convicted of killing his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, in 2002, couldn’t collect the money he would otherwise have been due from her life insurance policy.

Peterson has been in prison since 2005.

What can block its application?

In the absence of a murder conviction, the slayer rule may not apply. For example, a conviction for a lesser criminal offense, such as manslaughter, might allow the accused – or their lawyers – to argue that the killing was unintentional.

This exception could be relevant to the prosecution of the Reiners’ murders if it were to turn out that Nick Reiner’s defense can show that substance abuse or schizophrenia rendered him insane when he allegedly killed his parents at their Los Angeles home.

On the other hand, under California law, even if there is no conviction the probate court administering the murder victim’s estate could still separately find that the killing was intentional and felonious. That civil finding would bar the slayer from inheriting without a criminal conviction.

Does this only apply to families with big fortunes?

Slayer rules apply to anyone who kills one or more of their relatives, whether their victims were rich, poor or in between.

When large amounts of money are at stake, cases tend to garner more attention due to media coverage during the criminal trial and subsequent inheritance litigation.

Who will inherit Rob Reiner’s and Michele Singer Reiner’s wealth?

It’s too soon for both the public and the family to know who will inherit ultimately from the Reiners.

Wills are typically public documents, although the Reiners may have also engaged in other types of estate planning, such as trusts, that do not typically become public records. And celebrities with valuable intellectual property rights, such as copyrights from the Reiners’ many film and television properties, tend to establish trusts.

Assuming that, like many parents, the Reiners left most of their fortune – which reportedly was worth some US$200 million – to their children, including Nick, then California’s slayer statute may come into play. The couple had two other children together, Romy and Jake.

Rob Reiner also had another daughter, Tracy Reiner, whom he adopted after his marriage to his first wife, the actor and filmmaker Penny Marshall.

It’s also likely that the Reiners included charitable bequests in their estate plans. They were strong supporters of many causes, including early childhood development.

Might the slayer rule apply to Nick Reiner?

It’s much too soon to know.

It is important to emphasize that the wills and other estate planning documents of Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner have not yet been made public. That means what Nick Reiner might stand to inherit, if the slayer rule were to prove irrelevant in this case, is unknown.

Nor, with the investigation of the couple’s deaths still underway, can anyone make any assumptions about Nick’s innocence or guilt.

And, as of mid-December 2025, an unnamed source was telling entertainment reporters that Nick Reiner’s legal bills were being paid for by the Reiner family.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation