Here Are the Elected Republicans Who Won’t Back Trump

It’s a small list.

<a href="">Mukhina Victoriia</a>/Shutterstock

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

On Thursday afternoon, speaker of the House Paul Ryan told CNN that he was “not ready” to endorse Donald Trump. But it was not, as they say, a Ryanesque statement. The 2012 vice presidential nominee said he was “not there right now”—but left open the possibility that he would come around to Trump eventually. “I hope to, I want to, but I think what is required is that we unify this party,” said Ryan.

This is how people in Washington say “yes.”

In the two days since Trump became his party’s presumptive nominee, a ton of Republican officials have fallen in line. A bunch more, such as Maine Sen. Susan Collins, have taken the same cautious position that Ryan did. Indeed, for all the #NeverTrump chatter over the primary’s final two months, you can count the number of GOP politicians who have unequivocally ruled out supporting the New York steak magnate on two regularly sized hands:

Some context here is helpful. Dold, who represents a district that President Barack Obama won by 17 points in 2012, may be the most endangered Republican in the House. Curbelo represents a majority-Latino swath of Miami-Dade—the only county in Florida that Trump didn’t win in the March primary. Obama won Curbelo’s district by 11.5 points. Baker governs a deep-blue state where he’ll face an uphill reelection fight in two years. Ribble, Rigell, and Hanna are all retiring. Amash, who leans libertarian, has made a career out of scrapping with other Republicans and represents the only Michigan district Trump didn’t win. Sanford has, presumably, already survived the worst. The only Republican politician who might actually have something to lose by denouncing Trump is Sasse, who was elected two years ago with tea party support. But as a 44-year-old senator who is considered a rising star, he also has the most to gain—by positioning himself for a leading role in the party going forward should Clinton win in November.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend