How Fear of Being ‘Primaried’ Is Breaking Senate’s Constitutional Role
The nominee for secretary of defense defended himself against allegations that he had a problem with alcohol. “I am a man of some discipline,” he testified in his confirmation hearing. He also pushed back against accusations of marital affairs, which called his character and judgment into question. The Senate was unconvinced, and his nomination was defeated, 53-47.
The year was 1989, and the nominee was John Tower – a four-term senator from Texas and former chair of the Armed Services Committee picked by President George H. W. Bush. While it was the last time a cabinet nominee was rejected by formal vote, there have been over a dozen instances of candidates withdrawing post-nomination, often as a result of the vetting process that comes with the Senate’s constitutionally-prescribed role to provide “advice and consent.”
Today, however, the Senate seems content in ceding its constitutional duties to the new president. Republican Senators are poised to rubber stamp even the most suspect and unqualified cabinet picks. Regardless of how one may feel about any particular nominee, we should all be concerned about the damage being done to our constitutional system of separation of powers.
What’s changed over time? The weaponization of party primaries to enforce party loyalty.
Take the case of Pete Hegseth, who has come under even greater scrutiny than Tower before him for his drinking and sexual conduct, to say nothing of his lack of meaningful management experience. Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who voted to confirm all of President Trump’s defense picks in his first term, remarked that Hegseth lacks â??â??”the character and the competence” to lead the Pentagon, with its $800 billion budget and two million service members and staff.
Yet most Republican senators have fallen in line, and there’s little wonder why.
“If anyone in the Senate GOP votes against confirming Pete Hegseth after his stellar performance today, there will be a primary challenge waiting for you,” tweeted Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. Weeks earlier, in a podcast interview, Kirk singled out four Republican senators up for election in 2026 for potential primary challenges: Joni Ernst, Jim Risch, Mike Rounds, and Thom Tillis. “Republican senators [who] vote against President Trump’s nominees are signing their political death warrants,” echoed former Trump advisor Steve Bannon.
The pressure campaign apparently worked. Ernst, the Senate’s first female combat veteran, was initially noncommittal toward Hegseth when he was first announced, particularly in light of his numerous past comments questioning women’s fitness to serve in combat. The saber-rattling of a primary challenge echoed both nationally and within her state. Immediately after Hegseth’s hearing, Ernst released a statement of support.
The use of primaries as a tool to enforce party loyalty has reshaped American politics over the past two decades. What was once a mechanism for nominating candidates has become a cudgel to punish incumbents who dare to stray from the party line.
“Even though…very few challenges to incumbents succeed, the fear of being primaried leads incumbent representatives and senators to anticipate challenges and adapt to the possibility of being primaried,” noted Elaine Kamarck in a Brookings Institution analysis on the topic. “Members calibrate their message and tone to ward off or defend against primary challenges,” J.D. Rackey and Michael Thorning of the Bipartisan Policy Center wrote in another recent study.
For political factions and special interests on both the left and right, primaries have become tools to wield disproportionate political power relative to their actual support among voters. In 2024, 87% of U.S. House seats were effectively decided in primaries by just 7% of eligible voters nationally. Influencing this small and often more partisan and ideological base of voters is not very challenging, and incumbents are well aware.
While some states are trying to restrict their primaries even further by prohibiting the participation of independent voters, other states like Alaska have moved in the opposite direction by establishing open, all-candidate primaries. This system ensures elections are decided by a true majority of voters, regardless of party. And it liberates leaders, such as Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, to represent all of their constituents and vote their conscience. It is no coincidence that Murkowski announced Thursday that she will be voting against Hegseth’s nomination.
As Trump’s cabinet selections sail through the Senate, all Americans should heed the steady erosion of constitutional checks and balances and the concentration of power in the presidency. Just listen to what is being said aloud. During the arm-twisting campaign targeting Sen. Ernst, Iowa talk show host Steve Deace floated his own primary candidacy if Ernst did not back Trump, saying, “If the king wants a different senator from Iowa, we’ll have one.”
America disposed of a king nearly 250 years ago, and we should not let party primaries resurrect one.