President Donald Trump has posted incendiary social media rants about Sen. Mitch McConnell, including at one point musing that the Kentucky Republican had “a DEATH WISH.” He has repeatedly called McConnell’s Taiwan-born wife a racist nickname. He has called McConnell an “Old Broken Crow” who is “largely” responsible for GOP divides.
McConnell has in turn said Trump was “practically and morally responsible” for the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He has blamed Trump for the GOP’s poor 2020 and 2022 election results. And he has called Trump a “despicable human being,” a “narcissist,” “stupid” and “ill-tempered,” according to a recently released biography.
On Friday came confirmation that this very same McConnell could prove to be a creaky fulcrum for much of Trump’s second-term agenda — if he chooses to go that route.
McConnell has the potential to play the role of disrupter in a largely fawning GOP Senate because he is no longer its leader, tasked with keeping the GOP together and protecting the Republican majority. He is now just one of 100 senators, and as such, he can choose to exercise a different kind of power — that of thorn in Trump’s side, if he opts to — and have an outsize impact on the president’s appointments and agenda. Then again, McConnell may over time bow to party unity and the political winds of the day, as he has before.
🏛️
Follow Politics
McConnell’s decision to buck one of Trump’s Cabinet appointments on Friday thickened one of the most intriguing subplots of the next two years.
McConnell’s vote against Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, was the most surprising of the day. McConnell was one of three Republicans to vote with all Democrats against the former Fox News host. The others were the usual suspects: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), both moderates who had voted against Trump nominees before.
That effectively put McConnell smack in the middle of the Senate, which is seemingly where he could be on plenty of things. McConnell has signaled a desire to reorient his party with the Reaganesque, hawkish Republican values that have been on the decline in the Trump era. He has also signaled at least some potential resistance to other Trump nominees, including director of national intelligence pick Tulsi Gabbard and Health and Human Services secretary pick Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
At the same time, McConnell’s opposition to Hegseth was a somewhat familiar story. His vote was startling but relatively meaningless, practically speaking — much like his Jan. 6 comments in that neither of those things managed to turn the wheel and achieve a measurably damaging outcome for Trump. The Senate vote on Hegseth was tied, 50-50, and that meant Vice President JD Vance cast a predictable tiebreaking vote to confirm Hegseth.
But McConnell still chose to lodge his protest vote, even as it was clear Hegseth was about to be confirmed. (Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, the GOP’s other holdout, had publicly signaled his support when the vote began, erasing any real drama from the proceedings.)
How to read that?
There are plenty of Trump (and McConnell) critics who will view the vote as thin gruel. And they have their reasons.
When the rubber has met the road, McConnell has regularly been there for Trump. Despite his comments about Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6, the then-GOP Senate leader gave Trump a pass in his impeachment trial, when he could have marshaled support for banning Trump from office. And McConnell even endorsed Trump for president last year — after everything in the first two paragraphs above — when it became clear Trump would be the nominee.
Among the many Republicans who don’t seem to have much regard for Trump but have responded to political pressure by enabling him in major ways, McConnell is at or near the top of the list.
But McConnell comes into Trump’s second term with a different set of priorities. He’s just a senator from Kentucky (with a significant subcommittee chairmanship). That means he could feel less pressure to reflect his conference and be consumed by its degree of power — his decades-long North Star. And assuming the 82-year-old McConnell doesn’t seek reelection in 2026 when his term is up, it means he’ll be less burdened by personal political considerations.
That’s not to say he’ll suddenly become unchained and take on the role of a John McCain or a Mitt Romney. Nobody should expect that. And while retiring GOP senators have often been Trump’s biggest problems, he has a talent for making those critics’ lives hell in ways that generally keep them in line.
But McConnell has repeatedly suggested his overriding desire now is to guide his party in a certain political direction that isn’t just “more power.”
McConnell has made clear on multiple occasions that his first priority is assuring that the party doesn’t continue its descent into the kind of anti-interventionism and even isolationism that has taken hold in the MAGA movement, particularly with regard to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“With the party Ronald Reagan once led so capably, it is increasingly fashionable to suggest that the sort of global leadership he modeled is no longer America’s place,” McConnell said last month. “But let’s be absolutely clear: America will not be made great again by those who are content to manage our decline. So how do we turn back this tide?”
In an interview with the Financial Times around the same time, McConnell explicitly promised he would push back on Trump.
“No matter who got elected president [in 2024], I think it was going to require significant pushback, yeah,” McConnell said, “and I intend to be one of the pushers.”
McConnell also wrote a nearly 5,000-word essay in Foreign Affairs in which he repeatedly cautioned Trump against pulling back from American leadership on the world stage.
In the near term, the question is whether McConnell might actually thwart something Trump wants — specifically, Gabbard’s and/or Kennedy’s nominations.
He has declined to back Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman in line with the more anti-interventionist foreign policy he has warned about. McConnell, a polio survivor, also issued a sharp statement last month about how vital the polio vaccine is, at a time when the media were reporting on Kennedy’s skepticism of that vaccine.
But it’s not just about McConnell’s votes, which might or might not be sufficient to defeat these nominees or anything else; it’s also about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering. This is a man, after all, who has few historical equals when it comes to working the levers of political power. He might be a diminished figure, given his reduced power and his health issues, but he could seemingly be a significant problem for Trump if he wanted to be — and if he decided there was something more important than party unity.
He doesn’t seem to have thrown his weight around much to defeat Hegseth. But he at least sent something of a warning signal. Now, we watch and wait.
McConnell has in turn said Trump was “practically and morally responsible” for the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He has blamed Trump for the GOP’s poor 2020 and 2022 election results. And he has called Trump a “despicable human being,” a “narcissist,” “stupid” and “ill-tempered,” according to a recently released biography.
On Friday came confirmation that this very same McConnell could prove to be a creaky fulcrum for much of Trump’s second-term agenda — if he chooses to go that route.
McConnell has the potential to play the role of disrupter in a largely fawning GOP Senate because he is no longer its leader, tasked with keeping the GOP together and protecting the Republican majority. He is now just one of 100 senators, and as such, he can choose to exercise a different kind of power — that of thorn in Trump’s side, if he opts to — and have an outsize impact on the president’s appointments and agenda. Then again, McConnell may over time bow to party unity and the political winds of the day, as he has before.
🏛️
Follow Politics
McConnell’s decision to buck one of Trump’s Cabinet appointments on Friday thickened one of the most intriguing subplots of the next two years.
McConnell’s vote against Trump’s nominee for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, was the most surprising of the day. McConnell was one of three Republicans to vote with all Democrats against the former Fox News host. The others were the usual suspects: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), both moderates who had voted against Trump nominees before.
That effectively put McConnell smack in the middle of the Senate, which is seemingly where he could be on plenty of things. McConnell has signaled a desire to reorient his party with the Reaganesque, hawkish Republican values that have been on the decline in the Trump era. He has also signaled at least some potential resistance to other Trump nominees, including director of national intelligence pick Tulsi Gabbard and Health and Human Services secretary pick Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
At the same time, McConnell’s opposition to Hegseth was a somewhat familiar story. His vote was startling but relatively meaningless, practically speaking — much like his Jan. 6 comments in that neither of those things managed to turn the wheel and achieve a measurably damaging outcome for Trump. The Senate vote on Hegseth was tied, 50-50, and that meant Vice President JD Vance cast a predictable tiebreaking vote to confirm Hegseth.
But McConnell still chose to lodge his protest vote, even as it was clear Hegseth was about to be confirmed. (Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, the GOP’s other holdout, had publicly signaled his support when the vote began, erasing any real drama from the proceedings.)
How to read that?
There are plenty of Trump (and McConnell) critics who will view the vote as thin gruel. And they have their reasons.
When the rubber has met the road, McConnell has regularly been there for Trump. Despite his comments about Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6, the then-GOP Senate leader gave Trump a pass in his impeachment trial, when he could have marshaled support for banning Trump from office. And McConnell even endorsed Trump for president last year — after everything in the first two paragraphs above — when it became clear Trump would be the nominee.
Among the many Republicans who don’t seem to have much regard for Trump but have responded to political pressure by enabling him in major ways, McConnell is at or near the top of the list.
But McConnell comes into Trump’s second term with a different set of priorities. He’s just a senator from Kentucky (with a significant subcommittee chairmanship). That means he could feel less pressure to reflect his conference and be consumed by its degree of power — his decades-long North Star. And assuming the 82-year-old McConnell doesn’t seek reelection in 2026 when his term is up, it means he’ll be less burdened by personal political considerations.
That’s not to say he’ll suddenly become unchained and take on the role of a John McCain or a Mitt Romney. Nobody should expect that. And while retiring GOP senators have often been Trump’s biggest problems, he has a talent for making those critics’ lives hell in ways that generally keep them in line.
But McConnell has repeatedly suggested his overriding desire now is to guide his party in a certain political direction that isn’t just “more power.”
McConnell has made clear on multiple occasions that his first priority is assuring that the party doesn’t continue its descent into the kind of anti-interventionism and even isolationism that has taken hold in the MAGA movement, particularly with regard to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“With the party Ronald Reagan once led so capably, it is increasingly fashionable to suggest that the sort of global leadership he modeled is no longer America’s place,” McConnell said last month. “But let’s be absolutely clear: America will not be made great again by those who are content to manage our decline. So how do we turn back this tide?”
In an interview with the Financial Times around the same time, McConnell explicitly promised he would push back on Trump.
“No matter who got elected president [in 2024], I think it was going to require significant pushback, yeah,” McConnell said, “and I intend to be one of the pushers.”
McConnell also wrote a nearly 5,000-word essay in Foreign Affairs in which he repeatedly cautioned Trump against pulling back from American leadership on the world stage.
In the near term, the question is whether McConnell might actually thwart something Trump wants — specifically, Gabbard’s and/or Kennedy’s nominations.
He has declined to back Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman in line with the more anti-interventionist foreign policy he has warned about. McConnell, a polio survivor, also issued a sharp statement last month about how vital the polio vaccine is, at a time when the media were reporting on Kennedy’s skepticism of that vaccine.
But it’s not just about McConnell’s votes, which might or might not be sufficient to defeat these nominees or anything else; it’s also about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering. This is a man, after all, who has few historical equals when it comes to working the levers of political power. He might be a diminished figure, given his reduced power and his health issues, but he could seemingly be a significant problem for Trump if he wanted to be — and if he decided there was something more important than party unity.
He doesn’t seem to have thrown his weight around much to defeat Hegseth. But he at least sent something of a warning signal. Now, we watch and wait.
