The Republicans just took a serious electoral beating. As the party tries to recover, it has some familiar faces who may need to adjust quickly — or consider stepping aside.
Take Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, who is 93. He entered the state legislature in 1959 and won a seat in Congress in 1974, the year after I was born. That is an extraordinary stretch in public life. Still, it’s probably time for it to end.
Democrat Rob Sand has won Iowa’s governor’s race and takes office in January. If Grassley dies before his Senate term ends in January 2029, Sand could appoint a Democrat to serve until an election fills the seat. That could mean another vote against Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, or potentially a vote to convict him if the House impeaches him.
Why take that chance? Grassley could retire now, giving Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds the opportunity to appoint a temporary replacement before Sand takes office. A Senate seat — and perhaps a Supreme Court seat — is a lot to put at risk. It isn’t a gamble Grassley should make on his own. He could leave with the stature of a statesman, rather than stay on indefinitely. After nearly seven decades in politics, that doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request.
Then there’s Donald Trump, who is 80. After the midterms, he suggested his deportation policy might have been “too tough.” Soon after, he said there would be no amnesty and that his policy hadn’t changed. The mixed messages are hard to ignore. If you remember the shifting signals during the COVID years, you may feel a familiar unease.
Trump’s standing matters to the whole party. If he can’t rebuild confidence in the movement he still leads, states such as Iowa and Texas could see more Democratic wins, and the Republican nominee in 2028 will inherit a difficult situation.
Young voters moved sharply toward Democrats, while independents turned against Republicans by a wide margin. We can’t win the presidency by looking back fondly on 2016 or simply hoping the next nominee will fix everything. The party needs to win some of those voters back, and it should start while Trump is still in office.
Trump’s decision to name Stephen Miller as White House chief of staff suggests he understands the need to fight. That’s encouraging, I suppose. But voters need to see policy, not another announcement. Telling people they’re winning won’t mean much while their party is losing badly.
Immigration will show what Trump actually intends to do. The movement spent years demanding border enforcement; after a historic defeat, supporters may not be eager to hear that the policy has suddenly gone too far. And the White House can’t dismiss every suggestion of compromise as a misunderstanding and expect its voters to accept that.
On Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” Trump said his deportation policy “might be too tough.” He spoke about longtime workers in landscaping and hotels being deported, calling that outcome “a tough thing.” When Ross Douthat raised the possibility of giving those workers legal status, Trump seemed open to a deal. By Monday, he was saying there would be no amnesty. Which statement should people take seriously?
I can see three possible explanations, and each points to a different kind of trouble.
First, Trump may genuinely want some form of amnesty deal. That could divide the Republican base. Immigration has been central to his supporters, including younger men the party has spent years trying to attract. If they see this as a betrayal, a Ross Perot-style challenge could emerge in 2028, leaving the Republican nominee to deal with the fallout.
Second, perhaps this is meant to put Democrats in a bind. With Miller leading the effort, Trump could be floating a compromise that he expects Democrats to reject. In one post-election survey, independents backed Democrats over Republicans by nearly two to one. If Democrats refuse a deal, Trump could argue that he made an effort and they blocked it. Maybe that’s the strategy. But it’s risky when his own voters aren’t sure what the rules are.
Third, Trump could be trying to protect himself against impeachment. Democrats have won the House, while the final Senate picture still depends on races including Alaska. Conviction requires two-thirds of senators present. I can imagine a few Republicans voting to remove Trump, with others considering it if they believed there would be little political cost. Perhaps Trump is signaling flexibility on immigration to discourage some Republicans from joining that effort.
I don’t know which explanation is right. That uncertainty is part of the problem. Voters shouldn’t have to decode the president’s immigration policy, especially after an election this bad. Leaders need to explain what they plan to do and then follow through. Otherwise, each new interview leaves people trying to interpret another round of mixed signals — and many already feel let down.
We judge a tree by its fruit. Trump has managed to reinvent himself under pressure that would overwhelm plenty of people, so perhaps he can do it again. Grassley, too, has a final chance to decide how he wants to be remembered.
But after a defeat like the one on November 3, the party’s longtime leaders can’t expect endless patience. It’s time to adapt, gentlemen — or make room for someone else.
