Trump Endorses Letlow, Reopens Bill Cassidy Impeachment Rift
“I’m honored to have President Trump’s endorsement and trust. My mission is clear: to ensure the nation our children inherit is safer and stronger.
President Donald Trump’s late-Saturday endorsement of a potential primary challenger to Sen. Bill Cassidy was not an impulsive jab, but the culmination of a years-long breach that has never healed inside Louisiana Republican politics.
Trump’s message was explicit, personal, and unmistakably tied to Cassidy’s decision to side with Democrats during Trump’s 2021 impeachment trial. In a Truth Social post that immediately reverberated through GOP circles, Trump threw his full weight behind Rep. Julia Letlow, even though she has not formally entered the race.
“Should she decide to enter this Race, Julia Letlow has my Complete and Total Endorsement. RUN, JULIA, RUN!!!
I know Julia well, have seen her tested at the highest and most difficult levels, and she is a TOTAL WINNER!”
Both Politico and NBC News characterize the endorsement as directly linked to Cassidy’s impeachment vote, a point reinforced by Trump’s long history of singling out the seven Republican senators who voted to convict him after January 6. Cassidy was one of them, and unlike some of his colleagues, he has continued to publicly defend that vote.
In February 2021, Cassidy framed his decision as a constitutional obligation rather than a political calculation, language that remains politically radioactive among Louisiana Republican primary voters.
“Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty.”
That vote has never stopped haunting Cassidy. According to NBC News, GOP operatives close to Letlow indicated she would only consider entering the race if Trump committed to backing her, a condition Trump has now clearly met. The same reporting notes that Cassidy was privately told by senior Trump-world figures that an endorsement would not be forthcoming for his re-election bid.
Letlow’s response to Trump’s endorsement carefully avoided a formal announcement but left little doubt that she is seriously weighing a run.
I’m honored to have President Trump’s endorsement and trust. My mission is clear: to ensure the nation our children inherit is safer and stronger. ⁰
This United States Senate seat belongs to the people of Louisiana, because we deserve conservative leadership that will not waver. pic.twitter.com/851hQkXhIN— Julia B Letlow, Ph.D. (@jbletlow) January 18, 2026
“I’m honored to have President Trump’s endorsement and trust. My mission is clear: to ensure the nation our children inherit is safer and stronger.
This United States Senate seat belongs to the people of Louisiana, because we deserve conservative leadership that will not waver.”
The phrase “will not waver” mirrors language used repeatedly in post-impeachment primary challenges nationwide, and it reflects a broader Trump-aligned critique of Republicans who broke ranks during impeachment and later sought to straddle both sides of the party divide.
Cassidy, for his part, has attempted to emphasize his cooperation with the Trump administration in recent months, particularly on health policy and committee work, as the reader will note on this pinned tweet from October on Cassidy’s account:
Great to be with @POTUS in the Oval Office today! This is what a great working relationship looks like. pic.twitter.com/zquKzRMfcY
— U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (@SenBillCassidy) October 21, 2025
Still, as Politico notes, Trump’s endorsement of a challenger, declared or not, dramatically alters the political terrain. Even in a state rated “Solid Republican,” a Trump-backed primary challenge changes donor behavior, activist enthusiasm, and media coverage overnight.
Cassidy insists he is undeterred, publicly stating that he is “proudly running for re-election” and confident of victory should Letlow enter the race. But Trump’s intervention signals something more enduring: in Trump’s Republican Party, impeachment votes are not ancient history — they are active political liabilities.
Whether Letlow ultimately runs or not, the endorsement alone sends a clear warning to incumbents nationwide. For Republicans who voted to convict Trump, the reckoning is not over, and in Louisiana, it may just be beginning.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Cassidy framed his decision as a constitutional obligation rather than a political calculation…”
You know that old saying, when someone says it’s not about the money, it’s about the money?
Same here.
Trump’s impeachments are to politics as grain alcohol is to liquor.
Same nonsense as Pence.
Cassidy was a RINO that sold out because he thought Trump was done and he was finally free to screw him without repercussions. He knew Trump wasn’t going to be impeached, his vote was stupid and petty way of ‘getting even’ with Trump.
And then to pretend that he had no choice makes him a sellout AND a cowardly weasel who can’t even stand behind the decisions he made.
So what was his political calculation? What did he have to gain from voting to convict, knowing that he would not be convicted? How did he think this would help him in his future career? Did he think Louisiana voters, who overwhelmingly supported Trump, would reward him for his vote?!
Cassidy thought Trump was finished politically and the tide of public opinion would turn against MAGA once and for all after January 6th. By jumping on the bandwagon of impeachment, he hoped to consign MAGA to the dustbin of history, just as RINOs and establishment types previously defeated the Tea Party. I wouldn’t be surprised if he and other RINOs (e.g. Pence) secretly supported lawfare against Trump. With Trump out of the picture, Cassidy could restore the party to its historical roots of free trade, endless wars, and slow-motion surrender to the Left.
Pence is not and was never a RINO. Your calling him one discredits any other use you make of that term.
Pence was RINO enough to not have a back bone right when it was needed the most to ensure the election was carried out correctly (which it was not) 😡 Instead he caved like a RINO on heat and let America down and let Democrats in without a fight.
Trump asked Pence to do something that the constitution does not authorize him to do. Trump had legal advice from Eastman that it was lawful; that’s all very well. But Pence had a legal and ethical duty to obtain his own legal advice, which he did from Danforth, who told him he could not lawfully do what Trump asked him.
The truth is Eastman has a very good point that the Electoral Count Act is probably invalid; the whole idea behind it makes no sense. In a dispute between the Congress and the Senate president, Congress simply enacted its opinion into law. The Electoral Count Act simply reflects Congress’s opinion in that dispute. But that can’t be how it works. Congress’s statement that it was right should carry no more weight than Ferry’s statement that he was right.
So far so good. But where Eastman goes too far is in asserting that since Congress was wrong, Ferry must have been right. It’s true that the constitution doesn’t give Congress the power to count the votes. But nor does it give that power to the senate president.
The unfortunate fact is that the constitution is silent on the question of who counts the votes, and thus who can decide which votes are valid. It simply says the votes “shall be counted”. So if there’s a dispute no one has the authority to resolve it unilaterally, so it has to be resolved by negotiation.
At any rate, Pence did what his lawyer told him the law required of him. An honorable man could do no other.
Pence was a coward, just like all RINOs. He hid behind the advice of his lawyer, when the Constitution was silent about it. If he had challenged the count, it likely would have gone before the SCOTUS where the ambiguity could gave been resolved. Instead, he submitted, like the beta that he is, and the results of the election could not be challenged.
As you know, none of the claims of election fraud were ever considered on their merits due to lack of standing. It is highly significant that SCOTUS recently reversed that.
Even if the Constitution is silent, there is nothing that requires someone to accept fraud. The Framers would have been astonished that the VP and president of the Senate accepted a result for legalistic reasons despite the suspicion of fraud.
One more thing. I attended a conference ~2019 at which Pence was the keynote speaker. Although I was a Trump supporter, Pence’s praise for Trump was over-the-top and exaggerated. He sounded like a total ass-kisser and phony. I remember thinking that Trump better keep an eye on him, because Pence would turn on him in an instant. This was well before any of the events of January 6th. Pence’s about face was not a surprise to me at all.
He did not “hide”. It was his ethical duty to act on the legal advice that he had received, and not one that which someone else had received.
The fact is that the constitution does not give the senate president any authority whatsoever with regard to the count. Danforth correctly advised him that he had no authority to do anything about it.
And no, it would not have gone before SCOTUS, for the same reason that it didn’t go there in 1877. SCOTUS would have rejected it as a political question, to be sorted out by the political branches.
The framers might well have been astonished that anyone assumed it was up to the senate president to “accept” or “not accept” it. They certainly didn’t give him that role. The problem is they didn’t give it to anyone else either.
Surely Cassidy didn’t think his vote would be free of any consequences. Or did he think that the Democrats would be able to eliminate Trump from any future role in politics? Either way, he made an erroneous decision.
I give him the benefit of the doubt and tend to believe him that it truly was a vote compelled by his conscience — which makes his decision even more erroneous. He’s guilty not merely of an unwise political calculation, but of a serious error in judgment. If he could look at the flimsy (to put it mildly) case made against Trump and conclude “guilty”, then his judgment can’t be trusted.
A politician with a conscience? You may have discovered a new species, friend.
There are plenty of politicians with consciences. The problem here is that if he did act on his conscience (as he claims to have done), then he has terrible judgment. And of course if he didn’t then he’s lying.
Cassidy has no excuse – take the L and regret for trying to be with the cool kids on impeachment™
” . . . Politico and NBC News characterize . . . ”
Unreliable narrator.
Okay Cassidy, you can Hop Along now.
“— Julia B Letlow, Ph.D.”
It’s like noticing the bass violin riff become audible in a shark week movie.
Meh, unfortunately the crass reality of politics is about gaining power to reward friends and very often to punish enemies. The surprise for some rinos is that they are on the receiving end of the punishment. They and their neocon/globalist, establishment allies are gonna be outraged that a bell, if not the bell, is tolling for them.
Literally a traitor
At least his Democrat “friends” will reward him with some rich sinecure. Who am I kidding? They’ll toss him a tissue like a $5 Crack Wh0re and say: “We don’t trust disloyal turncoats”
Just like Romney, Cheney or Pence. Leftists don’t even pretend to care about them anymore.
They were only ever Useful Idiots to them, and now the ‘useful’ part is over.
the gop is crawling with cocktail party loving “swingers”
lefty has enough going for them in their agenda to hurt america
the gop should purge themselves of these people
Tillis is another one …. states he is GOP.. votes like a Dem, esp. if it is close… wonder what board of directors seat he was promised.
Tillis is gone. He’s ‘not seeking re-election’ rather than be humiliated.
Even outside the impeachment, Cassidy has always been one of the squishiest RINOs. If there were 4 Republicans voting with Democrats, it was Collins, Murkowski, Romney and Cassidy.
If he honestly believed Trump was guilty then it was indeed his solemn duty to vote to convict him. On the other hand, the very fact (if it is a fact) that he thought so should give Republican primary voters who, like most of us, believe Trump was obviously not guilty, strong reason to question his judgment and vote for someone else.
To most of us a belief that Trump was guilty of those charges is akin to a belief that Guam is in danger of capsizing.
Cassidy is one of several R’s who have fallen into the trap of voting to be liked by the press. Thom Tillis, Murkowski, Collins and others too. They are really liberals and not close to being conservative. The President has pointed out before how demonrats (before Fetterman’s enlightenment) vote in lockstep to thwart the President’s appointments and agenda. Then look at the R senators who blue slip his AAG and judicial nominations. Also Thune refuses to recess the Senate so President Trump can make recess appointments. When you open your eyes you can really see the Uniparty in action against President Trump and MAGA.
That is incorrect.
Even if the house consented for the senate to recess for 10 days, or even 30, and Trump made appointments during that recess, the Democrats would immediately challenge it in the Supreme Court, and it is almost 100% certain that they would win.
The last time recess appointments came before the court it refused to say how long a recess would be needed, except that anything less than ten days was insufficient. It didn’t say ten days was enough, just that less than that was definitely not enough.
However the conservative justices went further and held (1) that appointments can only be made in an intersession recess, not in an intrasession one. And also (2) that recess appointments can only fill vacancies that occurred during the recess.
At that time the conservatives were outvoted, but if it were to come back there can be little doubt that the three justices who were part of that conservative minority will vote the same way they did last time, and it’s likely that Gorsuch would vote with them, so they would only need one more vote for a majority. Surely at least one of Kavanaugh and Barret would vote with them.
Plus I think it likely that Sotomayor and Jackson would vote with them, just because it’s Trump. Only Kagan is likely to stick to the same position she took last time. In that case they wouldn’t need Kavanaugh or Barrett.
The bottom line is that recess appointments are a thing of the past. SCOTUS will strike them down as soon as it gets a chance.
Yeah … right. Where in the Constitution is the language that he claims Trump violated? Did he consider Capitol Police inviting people into the Capital to be part of Trump’s grand scheme? Did he think that people walking through the Capital between the rope lines was an armed insurrection? Or was it Lectern Guy, turning a symbol of American governance into a WMD as he sinisterly wielded the lectern with reckless abandon?
Cassidy is a complete POS. And the insane impeachment trial (of a person not even in office) and his America-hating vote in it are not the worst of his actions. Every day he is in the Senate is a burden on America.
This is one of the only things I respect Democrats for and that is their ability to stick together as a team, regardless how deranged the thing is Democrats are pushing. When push comes to vote, they ALL vote lock step with each other.
That is something Republican’s can only DREAM about!
It’s not true, though. The Democrats often have floor-crossers, just as the Republicans do. For instance on Trump’s first impeachment, 2 House Democrats voted “no” on the first count, and 3 on the second. Or on Bill Clinton’s impeachment, five House Democrats voted “yes” on the first three counts, and one on the fourth.