Connect with us

Politics

Nikki Haley's best — and perhaps last — chance to beat Trump is next week in New Hampshire

Published

on

Nikki Haley's best — and perhaps last — chance to beat Trump is next week in New Hampshire

With a frigid and anticlimactic Iowa caucus night behind them, the Republican presidential field moved Tuesday to New Hampshire, where Nikki Haley has her best — and perhaps only — chance to prove that Donald Trump can still be beaten in a GOP primary.

The shift means more than a change of scenery: For a brief moment, the spotlight will be on independent voters and non-Trump Republicans, who have only limited sway in most GOP primaries but are a force here, and may also play a major role in November’s general election.

The prominence of moderates means three things for the GOP:

  • Haley, the former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations, has a decent chance of beating the former president in next Tuesday’s primary.
  • But because New Hampshire differs so much from the Republican norm, Trump remains the overwhelming favorite to win almost everywhere else.
  • And the alienation of moderates from the GOP remains a significant risk for Trump’s chances in a general election against President Biden, despite the incumbent’s current weak standing.

Only 10% of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s supporters and 22% of Haley’s backers said they would vote for Trump in a general election matchup against the Democratic president, according to a Suffolk University survey of New Hampshire voters released before Christie dropped out of the race last week.

The general election threat to the GOP comes largely from voters like Christine Stover of Strafford, in eastern New Hampshire near the Maine state line, who went out on a recent snowy evening to join Christie’s town hall at a barbecue restaurant in nearby Rochester — the last public event the candidate held before quitting.

Advertisement

Stover, a project manager at the local telephone company, said that until recently, she had split her votes between Republicans and Democrats. In the 2022 midterm election, she voted a straight Democratic ticket for the first time.

She shifted her vote because of the decision that year by the Republican-appointed justices on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the ruling that had guaranteed abortion rights in the U.S. for nearly half a century.

“At this point, I don’t see myself ever actually voting for another Republican again” for president, she said, although she was attracted enough by Christie to consider voting for him in the primary.

Her husband, Paul Stover, who voted for Trump in 2016, said he was less certain of his choice this time around, but added: “I really don’t want to vote for Trump.”

Like many voters, he’s put off thinking about the likelihood of another Trump-Biden showdown, hoping it might somehow be avoided.

Advertisement

“I’ll admit it: I haven’t thought that far ahead,” he said when asked what he would do if the rematch occurs.

“I’ll think about it more when I have to,” he added. “That could be part denial.”

Moderate voters form a much larger bloc in the state than in most Republican primaries: Recent polls by Suffolk University of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire indicated, for example, that 41% of likely voters in New Hampshire’s GOP primary define themselves as moderate or liberal, compared with 23% of likely caucusgoers in Iowa.

By contrast, evangelical Christians, the dominant force in the GOP in much of the country, made up only about a quarter of the vote in New Hampshire in 2016, according to exit polls, the last time Republicans had a nomination contest. Monday night in Iowa, evangelicals were 55% of the voters, according to the poll of caucus participants done by television networks.

In most of the rest of the country — including in Haley’s home state of South Carolina, which holds its GOP primary on Feb. 24, and in California, which votes on March 5 —the Republican electorate looks more like the voters in Iowa than those in New Hampshire.

Advertisement

Although Haley is a southern conservative who has had strong evangelical backing in her career, she has become by default the candidate of northern moderates who want to defeat Trump. It’s an alliance of convenience more than enthusiasm, but provides an outlet for a group that has increasingly been pushed to — or beyond — the margins of Republican politics.

Several polls released last week showed Haley closing in on the lead here, with Trump holding about 4 in 10 likely voters and the former South Carolina governor supported by between a quarter and a third of them, depending on the survey.

Polls and interviews with voters indicate that she’ll probably pick up most of those who had backed Christie, which could give Haley most of the votes she would need to close the gap with Trump.

New Hampshire’s postcard image is of rural towns built around churches with picturesque white steeples. In reality, the majority of the state’s population lives in suburbs within hailing distance of the Boston metropolis.

And while the state’s voters are no longer representative of the Republican Party, they do roughly resemble a key nationwide voting bloc — the type of mostly white, middle-of-the-road suburbanites who have abandoned the GOP in droves in the Trump era and who played a major role in driving Democratic victories in the 2022 midterm elections.

Advertisement

Jack Lagasse, an independent voter who attended the Christie event, said he expected to vote for Biden, despite worries about “his age, and the fact that if he doesn’t make it through the presidency, we’ll end up with Kamala Harris as the president.”

Biden will be 82 and Trump 78 by inauguration day 2025, which falls on Haley’s 53rd birthday.

Lagasse said he would vote for the Democrat “because of the vendetta that Trump has for everybody and the fact that he didn’t want to give up the presidency the last time.”

“I’m afraid he’s going to try to turn this country into a dictatorship,” he said, noting the argument that Trump’s lawyers had made to an appeals court earlier that day that unless he was impeached first, he would be immune from prosecution for any crime he may have committed while president, even if he ordered the military to assassinate a political rival.

While Trump’s core supporters express fervent enthusiasm for his candidacy, other Republicans show a marked reluctance even when they say they expect they’ll vote for him in the end.

Advertisement

Asked what she would do if faced with a Trump-Biden matchup, Christina Austin, an executive assistant at an auto parts company in Dover, on New Hampshire’s coast, gave a long sigh.

“I’m not certain,” she said.

“Biden’s been very, very weak” and is “not doing a lot of good for the country,” she said, but she added that Trump and his family have a lot of “baggage.”

The moderate Republicans and independents who say they may vote for Biden aren’t all new defectors from the GOP ranks. Many voted for Biden in 2020 and are drawn to this year’s GOP primary largely as a chance to try to block Trump. But their continued disaffection is a reminder that even as Biden struggles with divisions in his party, Trump has alienated a significant share of what was once the Republican vote.

In Suffolk’s New Hampshire poll, 7 in 10 Christie voters said they would back Biden in the event of a Trump-Biden race. And more than 4 in 10 Haley backers in Iowa would vote for Biden rather than Trump, a Des Moines Register/NBC News poll found.

Advertisement

The loss of such voters worries Ed Huminick, a real estate developer and local Republican official in his hometown of Salem, N.H., along the Massachusetts state line. A prominent Christie backer — and a potential convention delegate before the former New Jersey governor pulled out — he said he now plans to vote for Haley. But he is resigned to the likelihood that her efforts will be for naught.

“I’m a Republican. I will hold my nose and vote Republican,” he said, even if that means voting for Trump.

“I’m 71 years old, and a Republican since I’m 21 — 50 years,” he added. “That’s longer than Trump’s been a Republican.”

But, Huminick said, voters whose partisanship is not so ingrained won’t do the same. New Hampshire, a closely divided state, has been slowly shifting toward the Democrats, especially in federal elections, and renominating Trump could create a tipping point for the state, he fears.

“Right now, we have a Republican governor, a Republican state Senate and a Republican House,” he said. “I’m concerned that … we’ll have a Democratic governor, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House” if Trump is the nominee.

Advertisement

Like Paul Stover, many have simply decided not to decide for now, hoping that some combination of age, legal drama or mischance might avert a rematch they dread.

When Christie pulled out of the race, he singled out for thanks one supporter, Toni Pappas, a Republican activist and chair of the board of commissioners for Hillsborough County, which includes Manchester, the state’s largest city.

Asked afterward whether she thought Trump was fit for office, Pappas said: “No, he is not.”

Asked what she would do if he were the party’s nominee, she grimaced slightly before responding, “I don’t know.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Published

on

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

transcript

transcript

Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”

Advertisement
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

By Shawn Paik

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending