Politics

Trump made the GOP a big-tent party. Now, he’s stuck with the infighting.

Published

2 years ago

January 14, 2025

A coalition of MAGA die-hards, tech bros and blue-collar workers were key to Donald Trump’s November victory.

Now, some of them are already at each other’s throats.

Free traders and protectionists are at odds over Trump’s promise to enact “universal” tariffs. Immigration hard-liners are butting heads with tech companies that support legal immigration. And isolationists are grappling with the president-elect’s apparently increasingly expansionist global agenda.

And days before he takes office some of Trump’s most ardent original supporters have been the most resistant to the bigger tent.

“There’s going to be a fundamental ideological clash between the original MAGA base that supported President Trump from the beginning and the tech overlords who are literally buying influence so that they can try to manipulate and change our foreign policy and our tech policy and our immigration policy,” said Laura Loomer, the controversial conservative activist who said she lost premium features on X due to disagreeing with Elon Musk on immigration policy.

These clashes, including opening shots in recent days from longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon at the president-elect’s new companion Musk, presage the challenges Trump faces in governing his newly big-tent Republican Party.

But some Trump allies argue these divides are a feature — not a bug — of Trump’s governing style. During his first administration, the president-elect was known for running his Cabinet like an executive boardroom: He brought together a cadre of diverse interests, let them duke it out and then, on his own, decided the path forward. That strategy, of encouraging competition among his advisers, allowed Trump to retain the ultimate decision-making authority and prevented any one group from gaining too much power.

“Whenever one of these issues comes up and there’s a fight, like between Steve Bannon and Elon Musk, and I’m like, well, whose name is on the ballot? Trump’s,” said Scott Jennings, a GOP strategist who was at one point considered for the president-elect’s press secretary post. “His personal and his political influence is at its apex. And so if there’s a fight or a division going on, and he’s got two people who are legitimately allies of Trump and want to see him do well but they’re fighting or competing for his ear on something, ultimately, his power and influence here is going to settle it, I would imagine, rather quickly. There’s no more powerful person in Washington right now.”

The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

Beyond the schism between hardcore MAGA loyalists and Musk over H-1B visas — which are designed to allow companies to bring skilled foreign workers to the U.S. but have drawn the ire of some Democrats and Republicans — some Trump loyalists like Loomer and Bannon have also attacked noted venture capitalists and players in the tech world.

“This is only the first of many eruptions and fractures between the MAGA base and the so-called Tech Right as they call themselves — and I say ‘as they call themselves’ because these guys are not right wing — they decided to support Trump after he was almost assassinated, but their voting record and their political giving history shows [otherwise],” Loomer said.

$“This is only the first of many eruptions and fractures between the MAGA base and the so-called Tech Right as they call themselves,$

In an interview with Blue Light News, Bannon also took aim at tech funders Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen, who are said to have Trump’s ear — and even questioned his pick of Ken Howery to be ambassador to Greenland due to his ties to Thiel.

“I hope our efforts in Greenland are not associated with that,” Bannon said.

Trump observers say the spat reflects a long-standing truth in Trump world — being in his inner circle is always a moving target. The president-elect has long had a reputation for making policy decisions based on the last person he talked to about an issue.

“Steve Bannon has been in his ear for a long time, something of a base whisperer, yet now we see Elon coming into prominence,” said Matthew Bartlett, a GOP strategist and former Trump administration appointee. But “at the end of the day, it is [Trump’s] decision — whether it’s H-1B visas, whether it’s critical foreign policy — and he has no problem asserting himself and leaving others out in the cold. The king whisperer can easily find himself on the other side of the moat.”

Trump’s first administration was chock full of groups that were at odds with each other: establishment Republicans and MAGA outsiders; policy pragmatists and ideologues; hawks and isolationists; institutionalists and loyalists; and family and non-family. Those splits allowed Trump to frame himself as the ultimate consensus-builder and dealmaker, including with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the renegotiation of NAFTA.

And he appears to be taking the same approach ahead of his second term. Already, Trump quickly tamped down any would-be opposition to Mike Johnson’s speakership, and he has expressed his preference for one “big, beautiful bill” on reconciliation.

Because so many diverse interests came together to elect Trump, even including some Democrats and independents, Trump allies argue that it’s inevitable he’ll make a decision that at least some of his supporters disagree with. Last week, he roiled isolationists when he wouldn’t rule out using military force to annex Greenland and regain control over the Panama Canal, seemingly expanding the “America First” agenda of his first term to a more expansionist vision.

Anti-abortion groups have been frustrated by his pick of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Health and Human Services secretary. And more traditional conservatives haven’t been happy with his choice of strongly pro-union Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) as Labor secretary.

A former Trump official, granted anonymity to assess a fraught moment for the movement, also argued that this is the most unified the country has been around the president-elect since he first entered office.

The Laura Loomers and Steve Bannons of the world “feel like they built Trump, they made Trump Trump, and they want to leverage it like a purity test,” the person said. “That doesn’t work with a coalition this big.”

Politics

How SNAP could crunch the midterms

Published

2 days ago

October 10, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Under the political radar, the country’s food stamps program is undergoing a slow-motion transformation. The ramifications could bubble up into the midterms.

Changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program from Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act are rolling out in phases, from tougher work requirements to restrictions on non-citizens. Food stamp rolls already shrank by more than 5 million people nationwide as of this summer, as the hardest-hit state, Arizona, saw an outright majority of its food stamp recipients lose benefits.

The latest alteration clicked into place Oct. 1, when the share of administrative costs states and counties have to pay rose to 75% from 50%. An even bigger financial shift looms in a year, when states with high payment error rates will have to assume some benefit costs for the first time, a scenario that’s already rippling through state and local budget planning.

It all adds up to a new era in federal-state relations — and in the size and nature of the welfare state.

In a year when affordability worries top voters’ priority lists and grocery prices strain their wallets, Democrats think the SNAP shift gives them an opening to make Republicans pay politically after the GOP used social safety net cuts to food aid and Medicaid to help pay for last year’s tax cuts.

“People are getting kicked off these programs at the very moment they’re going to the polls to vote,” House Agriculture ranking member Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said. “I sure wouldn’t want to be a Republican headed into the November ballot.”

But Republicans think they have a compelling story to tell voters, trying to right-size a program that spends millions of dollars on erroneous payments. The SNAP changes align with the Trump administration’s broader push to crack down on fraud and make the government smaller or more efficient. Implementing stricter work requirements for welfare often polls well, and trying to move people toward work gets at the root causes of poverty, they argue.

“The premise is simple: Let’s make sure that this program is preserved for those truly in need, and that we aren’t squandering taxpayer dollars,” a senior USDA official told Playbook in an interview. “And let’s make sure that if folks are able-bodied, they are work training or volunteering for 20 hours per week.”

That doesn’t mean Republicans in competitive races are putting SNAP and Medicaid cuts front and center on the campaign trail. When they tout last year’s megalaw, new tax breaks typically lead the messaging. And 10 frontline GOP House campaigns didn’t respond to requests for interviews about how they can win on SNAP.

At the state and county level, some governments are scrambling to prepare for a massive cost shift, hitting at the same time as significant Medicaid changes. The resulting bureaucratic jumble has contributed to some of the SNAP losses this year, as recipients struggled to get through overtaxed call centers, some states cut staff, and others tightened their processes.

“It really sets up a change in the federal responsibility, and I view it as a slippery slope,” warned Barbara Guinn, New York’s commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. Her state is staring down a possible $1 billion added burden next year, though they’re advocating for a repeal of the benefits change. “Once they implement any kind of cost shift, I think it will be easier for them to take similar actions in the future.”

Whether to delay next year’s cost shift has already generated tensions over the farm bill in the Senate, where Democrats are demanding a longer postponement than Republicans’ offer of one year. Some Minnesota counties are considering significant property tax increases to pay for the extra costs, Craig said: “We’re going to be pushing hard for a two-year delay — at the request of, frankly, many of my Republican county commissioners, not just Democrats.”

Conservatives see the new calculus as a long overdue change to improve efficiency and incentivize program integrity. Improper payment rates are high in many states (though they comprise both over-payments and under-payments, and error rates are different from fraud). Those that reduce errors enough won’t have to take on paying the benefits. And even opponents of the changes think lower error rates are a worthy goal. SNAP rolls often ebb and flow with the economy, and the recent drop could reflect the job market pulling people out of need — or the removal of people who shouldn’t have been getting food stamps in the first place.

“There needs to be some level of accountability,” the USDA official said. States with high error rates “need to start to have skin in the game.”

But at a time when many households are already squeezed by inflation, the SNAP changes have correlated with higher numbers of Americans turning to charities to ward off hunger. The surge in people losing food aid came more quickly than expected. The unemployment rate hasn’t meaningfully changed. And the vast majority of large food banks in a recent NBC survey said they were grappling with higher demand, in part due to food stamp changes. Another rule kicking in the day after the midterms could lead to many retailers being bumped out of SNAP as places where low-income people can use their benefits.

For state governments, a set of sweeping operational changes are now underway to conform to new policy demands, often requiring more money or staffing at already under-resourced offices. And the budgetary stakes to get error rates lower are sky-high.

“It’s a really complicated, nuanced and confusing time for states who are trying to administer SNAP,” said Lauren Kallins, a senior legislative director at the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, which has advocated for a delay in the benefits costs shift.

Politics

David Plouffe warns Dems: Don’t take North Carolina for granted

Published

2 days ago

October 10, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

National Democrats are increasingly shifting their attention away from North Carolina’s Senate race as polls show former Gov. Roy Cooper ahead, eyeing once long-shot races as possible pickups. But a veteran Democratic strategist who helped deliver the party’s last presidential victory in the state is urging donors not to take a win for granted.

David Plouffe, who managed behind Barack Obama’s narrow 2008 victory in North Carolina, urged Democratic donors and supporters not to grow complacent in the final weeks of Roy Cooper’s Senate campaign, according to audio obtained by Blue Light News.

“I think that this race … has I think been the best run race in the country,” Plouffe said on the call. “But that doesn’t mean that we can rest easy.”

He warned about North Carolina’s relatively fixed partisan makeup as a purple state, making it difficult for a candidate to dramatically expand their base of support.

“There’s certain states that elections happen within a bound, and this one will be that way as well,” he said.

In public polling, Cooper leads Republican Michael Whatley, who has struggled to boost his name recognition against the much better-known former governor. And as Democrats grow increasingly bullish on their candidate’s chances of flipping the seat — one of four pickups they need to take control of the Senate — national groups have begun shifting their money and attention to other contests, including most recently to Kansas.

But Plouffe said North Carolina needs to remain a priority.

“We have to win the ones we have to win,” he said on the call to Cooper’s finance committee.

Just days before Plouffe’s remarks, Senate Democrats’ top super PAC pulled back some of its spending in North Carolina, following a much bigger retreat by Republicans’ top super PAC in the state.

Plouffe cautioned that North Carolina has historically been a tough state for Democrats at the federal level, especially in recent years. The party hasn’t won a Senate race there since 2008, when Obama became the last Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state, winning by fewer than 15,000 votes. He lost the state in 2012.

“Even though we carried the electoral votes back then, we only did so by I think 14,000 votes. So it was our narrowest victory,” Plouffe said. “And in 2012, we tried to win North Carolina again with the help of so many people on this phone, and we just couldn’t get it done. And that tells you how difficult the state is.”

Plouffe also cast the stakes of Cooper’s race as extending beyond November, arguing that a Cooper victory could provide a blueprint for the party’s eventual 2028 presidential nominee.

“Democrats need to compete and win in North Carolina in 28,” he said. “And it’s one thing to look how a governor can win a state. The best route, the best scout that you receive, is how someone in a federal race won in a tough state, and that can show you the way.”