Brian Kemp and the Dream of a Post-Trump GOP
In a Trump-led GOP, the U.S. Senate isn’t an inviting destination for anyone but enthusiastic cheerleaders.
We don’t know about you, but we sure find it reassuring to have an education secretary with a real flair for prose style. Linda McMahon’s shouty letter to Harvard, sent yesterday to make official the cessation of federal grants to the university, starts off by proclaiming the federal government’s “sacred responsibility to be a wise and important1 steward of American taxpayer dollars,” and only gets more, ah, remarkable from there:
Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics, when it is supposedly so hard to get into this “acclaimed university”? Who is getting in under such a low standard when others, with fabulous grades and a great understanding of the highest levels of mathematics, are being rejected?
Harvard has even been embroiled in humiliating plagiarism scandals, exposed clearly and plainly in the media, with respect to your then University President, who was an embarrassment to our Nation.
Happy Tuesday.
All Is Not Peachy
by Andrew Egger
Yesterday’s news that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp won’t challenge Sen. Jon Ossoff in 2026 came as a heavy blow to Peach State Republicans, who saw their popular governor as easily their best shot to knock off the Democratic incumbent. But the GOP operatives I spoke to were trying to make the best of it. In their telling, the Senate wouldn’t be good enough for Kemp.
“He would hate the Senate,” Republican consultant Brian Robinson told The Bulwark. “He would hate the commute. He would hate being one of 100. He would hate not getting things done.”
“What’s the upside?” said former state Rep. Scot Turner. “Going to a dysfunctional, do-nothing Senate? Not exactly a good consolation prize for someone of his caliber.”
In a not-so-distant past, governors would be much more inclined to launch bids for the United States Senate, seeing it as a logical next step in the accumulation of political power. But this year, the current is flowing in the opposite direction. Sen. Michael Bennet has said he’s leaving the chamber to pursue a gubernatorial run. Sens. Tommy Tuberville and Marsha Blackburn are considering gubernatorial bids themselves. Govs. Gretchen Whitmer, Andy Beshear, and former Gov. Chris Sununu have all said they will pass on Senate runs.
It’s left political operatives in their respective states scrambling.
“As a friend, I get it and remain grateful to him for his sacrifices and all he has done,” former state party chair John Watson said of Kemp’s decision. “As a political operative, I am devastated.”
Kemp is a highly unusual figure in Republican politics—the longtime Trump enemy who remains personally Trump-agnostic. When he declined to back Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election in his state, Trump vowed political revenge. He recruited former Sen. David Perdue to primary Kemp in 2022, then campaigning heavily on Perdue’s behalf, denouncing Kemp incessantly as a “RINO,” a “turncoat,” a “coward,” a “complete and total disaster.”
Kemp just ignored it all. “I can’t control what other people that don’t even live in our state are doing,” he told me at the time. “What I’m reminding people of is my conservative record.”
When Kemp trounced Perdue by 50 points, many read it as a sign that Trump’s previously formidable sway over the GOP was on the wane. And when he easily won reelection over Democrat Stacey Abrams, it seemed proof of concept that MAGA voters weren’t strong enough to exercise a heckler’s veto over Republicans who didn’t kiss the ring.
What a difference a few years make! In 2022, Kemp, like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, seemed poised to contend for the mantle of what some thought would shortly be a post-Trump GOP. Instead, as Trump came roaring back last year, Kemp again found himself in uneasy territory. Trump, campaigning in the state, turned on the charm: “Loved being in Georgia today,” he tweeted in October. “Great people, incredible spirit, Governor Kemp is doing a really good job.” Kemp was more of a cipher. Asked to discuss his relationship with Trump two weeks out from the election, the governor replied: “I want him to win—we are making sure we fight for the win from the top of the ticket to the bottom.”
Kemp’s decision to pass on the Senate may be driven by a personal affinity for the trappings of an executive office. But it also feels like a commentary on the state of the GOP.
In 2022, Kemp showed it was possible for a popular Republican governor to ignore Trump from a position of strength.
But the post-Trump future that that win seemed to (at least potentially) foreshadow is now firmly gone. And Kemp surely recognized that in the Senate, he’d have to make a hard choice: Join the Trump Cheerleader Brigade, or move at last to actively oppose the reelected president—this time from a position of relative weakness.
Georgia-watchers whisper that Kemp has his eye on the next election: the presidential contest of 2028. Hope springs eternal. For some people, it seems, the dream of a Republican party that glides out from under Trump all on its own can never really die.
Trump Fought The Law, and the Law… Won?
by Sam Stein
Law firms that cut deals with Donald Trump to evade the harsh impact of his executive orders have privately insisted to Democrats that they are not bound to take on cases that the president requests.
In letters to Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Jamie Raskin—passed along to The Bulwark—several firms that cut deals with the White House said that under their reading of the settlements, they maintained authority to choose their pro bono clients, even if those deals required them to devote tens of millions of dollars to specific pro bono causes.
“Latham maintains its complete independence as to the clients and matters the firm takes on, whether in our pro bono or commercial engagements,” read a letter from Latham & Watkins.
“The agreement does not dictate or restrict what pro bono matters we will take on moving forward,” read the letter from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.
“We have not and will not restrict our pro bono activities or the positions we take on behalf of those clients,” read the letter from the firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.
The letter from A&O Shearman was perhaps the most detailed. It notes that “the Agreement” requires the firm to provide $125 million pro bono and other free legal services to “three specified areas” (emphasis ours). Those areas are assisting veterans and other public servants, ensuring fairness in our justice system, and combatting antisemitism. “The Agreement does not call for, or permit, the administration or any other person or entity to determine what clients and matters the Firm takes on, whether they be pro bono matters or otherwise,” the letter reads.
The assertion of independence from these firms stands in contrast to Trump’s public utterances, in which he suggested that he may dispatch some of the firms to work on pet issues like tariffs and coal leasing. And it foreshadows the possibility that the president could end up going after those firms again if they decline to take on a client that he demands. It doesn’t take much to imagine Trump going nuclear after the firms he browbeat start declining to take on cases like police officers accused of excessive force or ICE officials sued for not following proper procedures.
The White House did not return a request for comment.
To date, the president has secured roughly $1 billion in pro bono commitments from various law firms. Four big firms have declined to settle with the White House, with one—Perkins Coie—prevailing in a court decision which determined that the executive order targeting it was unconstitutional.
AROUND THE BULWARK
Can Trump Handle the India-Pakistan Crisis? The two countries barely avoided war under the last administration. This time is worse, observes DANIEL S. MARKEY.
Trump Is Spooked by Putin’s Nuke Threats… The president takes the Kremlin’s bluster at face value. It’s a trap, writes ERIC S. EDELMAN.
The Comprehensive Guide to Trump’s Putin Fetish… On Bulwark+ Takes, WILL SALETAN explains why “Donald Trump’s obsession with Vladimir Putin is deeper—and creepier—than you think.”
Dealmaker: The Greatest Trump Myth… This week, on the Mona Charen Show, the New Yorker’s SUSAN GLASSER joins MONA CHAREN to discuss Trump’s big beautiful deals, the cowardice of the press, and more.
Quick Hits
THE CHEERIER, FRIENDLIER FACE OF MASS DEPORTATION: Until now, the White House’s mass-deportation program has been one big arsenal of sticks. Now, they’re adding a carrot.
On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security announced that illegal immigrants who leave the country voluntarily using the CBP Home app—a rebranded version of the same app the Biden administration used to process arriving migrants at entry points at the southern border—will now receive a $1,000 stipend to defray the costs of leaving America.
DHS also promises participating migrants a suite of other fringe benefits: the possibility of additional financial assistance or assistance obtaining travel documents, increased agency for them to “wrap up work, school, and personal matters and organize their return in an orderly and lawful way,” and assurance that participants “will be temporarily deprioritized by ICE for detention or enforcement action before their scheduled departure (if self-funded) or on their allotted flight or transport (if assistance is required).”
On the one hand, this is plainly the best idea the mass-deportation brain trust has thought up yet. It’s certainly more humane than the rest of the apparatus.
On the other hand, this more humane policy plainly isn’t intended to assuage migrant fears as much as it is to channel them. Part of the point of the White House’s maximalist ICE propaganda has been to keep illegal immigrants in a constant state of high alarm, softening them up for this kinder, friendlier face of “temporary ICE deprioritization.” You sure don’t want ICE to break your car window and drag you into a van in front of your crying daughter, do you? Much better to settle your affairs peaceably—and hey, here’s a stipend for your trouble.
OCCUPYING GAZA: Since retaking office, Donald Trump has backed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the hilt. And Netanyahu is pressing the advantage.
In a video, Netanyahu announced yesterday that Israel’s military will no longer plan to withdraw from seized territory in Gaza, but will continue to hold large swaths of the strip until Hamas is defeated. Netanyahu said that he made this decision under the advice of his new IDF chief of staff.
Some Israeli ministers went even further. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said Monday that Israelis should “stop being afraid of the word ‘occupation.’” Those comments followed intense fighting throughout Gaza, as the IDF has accelerated combat operations throughout Hamas’s areas of control. With the next Israeli election not scheduled for two years, Netanyahu has politically survived the worst attack on the Jewish state in its history. He now has a little over a year to destroy Hamas, rescue the remaining hostages, and find a suitable replacement for Hamas. That’s a tall order for any politician, even one as wily as Bibi.
—Will Selber
IS THIS THE END? The North Carolina Supreme Court election has remained painstakingly unresolved as the Republican candidate has sought to have tens of thousands of ballots tossed out in an attempt to reverse his 734 vote deficit. It’s been a lot. Six months? Surely things can move faster than this.
Well, we may be nearing the end. On Monday, we got a ruling from federal District Judge Richard Myers ordering the state Board of Elections to certify the results based on the November tally. Doing so would mean victory for Democratic incumbent Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs.
Riggs, for her part, has claimed victory. We’re sure the North Carolina GOP—famous for quietly conceding defeat—will now rest its case.
Cheap Shots
?
"Asked to discuss his relationship with Trump two weeks out from the election, the governor replied: “I want him to win—we are making sure we fight for the win from the top of the ticket to the bottom.”
Backing a man who tried to steal an election in order to stay illegally and unconstitutionally in the office of the Presdency?. Should amount to complete disqualification for running for any elected office.
Disappointed that so little has been made of the Perkins Coie ruling; we need to celebrate our victories - how ever few and far between!
On the other hand, as a North Carolinian who campaigned for Allison, thanks for the including the latest - and for your vote of confidence in the Repubs here (/s)!