Two Republican Senators Criticizing Trump—It’s a Start
Mike Rounds and Rand Paul have dared to blast Trump policies.
THE RESPONSE FROM SENATE REPUBLICANS thus far to Donald Trump’s Shock and Awful nominations has been pathetic. Sure, in private, some GOP senators have expressed disgust about Trump picking unfit cronies to lead critical government operations. And yes, former Rep. Matt Gaetz had to withdraw from consideration for the job of attorney general, and some Republicans have warned that the remaining nominees will face significant “questions” at their confirmation hearings.
But—especially considering that the most consequential nominations include Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Kash Patel—the overall response from Senate Republicans has been pitifully weak.
So it’s worth keeping an eye on the two who have, in the time since Trump was re-elected to a second term, dared to speak out against parts of his agenda.
Sen. Rand Paul has slammed Trump’s tariff threats and has pledged to oppose the use of the military to round up and deport millions of illegal immigrants. And while Sen. Mike Rounds attempted to dodge any substantive comments about Patel on Sunday, he has described Trump’s plans to resolve the war in Ukraine by negotiating with Vladimir Putin as folly.
These aren’t disagreements on process—like Republican senators insisting on mandated FBI background checks for nominees, which the Trump team wants to skip, or their pledge to protect the filibuster that Trump pressured them to jettison during his first term. The comments from Rounds and Paul amount to a rejection of ideas upon which Trump explicitly campaigned.
As incoming chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees not only DHS but much of the rest of the executive branch, Paul has made clear that while he supports deporting immigrants residing here illegally, he opposes a declaration of an emergency to deploy our armed forces in place of state and local law enforcement. He called it “illegal.” The concept of the military policing Americans, Paul said, is “a terrible image.”
And Paul is not down for the popular-with-MAGA cruelty that Stephen Miller and other architects of Trump’s plans have in mind.
As an example, Paul cited a generic housekeeper who has been here for three decades. “I don’t see the military putting her in handcuffs and marching her down the street to an encampment. I really don’t want to see that,” he said on CBS News. Paul went on Newsmax to deliver the same message to a different audience, calling it “a huge mistake.”
Paul’s objection is consistent with his opposition to Trump declaring an emergency at the border in 2019 to fund the construction of his wall. Paul supported the wall but not the emergency, since Congress has the power of the purse.
And while Trump campaigned on tariffs as a way to add to government coffers, boost domestic manufacturing, and provide us critical leverage with other countries like China, Paul has panned this idea. He has not only argued that tariffs tax consumers and raise prices, he introduced legislation requiring congressional consent to “any tariffs that significantly impact American businesses and consumers.”
WHILE PAUL MADE CLEAR he intends to limit Trump’s quest for unchecked executive power, Rounds, in essence, said Trump doesn’t have the power he thinks he does when it comes to Russia.
In casting doubt upon the wisdom of negotiating with Putin, Rounds dismissed a core Trump selling point—his supposed “great relationship” with the Russian dictator and his promise to end the war in one day.
In remarks before the Halifax International Security Forum last month, Rounds made clear that he is skeptical of any plan to apportion Ukrainian territory to Putin in exchange for peace.
“It’s time to take a hard look at this thing and really ask ourselves, do you believe that this tyrant, if you offered him a part of a free country, do you think he’s going to stop?” Rounds asked. “Or do you think he’s going to look at that and say ‘You see? We’re strength. We’re Russian strength.’” He added: “See, I think that’s what happens.”
Without specifically referring to Trump’s plans for negotiations, Rounds said, “I fear, as much as I would love to say that there is a path towards a peaceful resolution to this by negotiating with this tyrant, I suspect that we may be deceiving ourselves.”
These comments from Rounds and Paul have been met with uncharacteristic silence from Trump and his loyal trolls. And both men are ready for it—they have been attacked by Trump before.
Paul and Trump mocked each other aggressively in the 2016 GOP primary campaign. Paul not only called Trump “a delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag,” but criticized his fitness to lead. In a 2015 debate, Paul asked, “Do we want someone with that kind of character, that kind of careless language to be negotiating with Putin, to be negotiating with Iran?” He added: “Would we not all be worried to have someone like that in charge of the nuclear arsenal?”
Then, like so many others—Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and so on—Paul came to heel when Trump went to the White House. They golfed together, and Paul defended him energetically on all matters, including during both impeachments. Unlike Rounds, Paul shares Trump’s warm feelings towards Putin. After Trump’s infamous betrayal at Helsinki, Paul was Trump’s only defender, saying his critics were “unhinged” and motivated by “Trump derangement syndrome.”
Paul spoke at Trump’s 2020 convention and said he was “proud” of the job Trump did as president, but said he didn’t endorse Trump this year because of his concerns about how much he ran up the debt in his first term. Rounds supported Sen. Tim Scott in the GOP primary. Both senators said they would support the party’s nominee—the kind of perfunctory response Trump world keeps lists about.
Rounds provoked Trump’s wrath in 2022 when he said the 2020 election wasn’t stolen and that Trump had lost. He said former Vice President Mike Pence “acted with integrity,” and told his fellow Republicans, “it’s time for the rest of us to do the same.”
When Trump attacked him, Rounds said he was “disappointed but not surprised.” And later that year when Trump suggested suspending the Constitution, Rounds released a statement that read: “As elected officials, we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We should never dishonor that oath. No one is above the Constitution.”
Rounds, a former governor, is one of the Senate’s quieter members, while Paul—an eye doctor—is the son of a movement leader who has used lengthy filibusters, regular television appearances, and a presidential campaign to raise his profile.
Perhaps at age 70, Rounds will decide the next two years will be better spent telling the truth instead of contorting himself to fend off a MAGA primary challenger in South Dakota.
In any case, Paul and Rounds have each in different ways made clear what they think of the president-elect. Neither man trusts Trump on the world stage, no matter what Paul says now, and both expect him to work to trample the Constitution in his second term much harder than he tried in his first.
It may be too much to hope they treat Trump like a lame duck president, and provide the kind of ordinary pushback that would be welcome in a normal political party. After all, Trump’s agenda isn’t popular and he has no mandate from the voters. And he’s leaving soon and the party will reset when he exits in 2028—right? Right?
Let’s hope Rounds and Paul stick to their principles when things get more painful next year.