Can Indiana lawmakers win after defying the president’s vote?
Seven Indiana Republican state senators who opposed Donald Trump's push for mid-decade redistricting now face primary challengers endorsed by the former president. Trump-aligned groups have spent over $7 million on ads targeting these lawmakers, framing the election as a test of loyalty to Trump. The outcome could signal the extent of Trump's influence within the Republican Party ahead of the 2026 midterms.
- ▪Seven Republican state senators in Indiana voted against Trump’s redistricting effort and now face primary challengers backed by him.
- ▪Trump-aligned dark money groups have spent at least $7 million on TV ads in Indiana, mostly targeting Republicans who opposed redistricting.
- ▪Greg Goode and Jim Buck are among the incumbents facing tough re-election battles after defying Trump’s redistricting demands.
- ▪Republicans control seven of Indiana’s nine congressional districts, and the overall balance is unlikely to shift in 2026.
- ▪Less than 1% of the $25.5 million spent on political ads in Indiana’s 2026 primary comes from Democratic advertisers.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Seven state senators who voted against Donald Trump’s redistricting push now face challengers endorsed by the president. Photograph: AJ Mast/APView image in fullscreenSeven state senators who voted against Donald Trump’s redistricting push now face challengers endorsed by the president. Photograph: AJ Mast/APUS newsCan Indiana lawmakers win after defying the president’s vote?Seven Republican state senators battle for re-election against candidates backed by Donald TrumpCate BrownTue 5 May 2026 06.00 EDTLast modified on Tue 5 May 2026 06.01 EDTSharePrefer the Guardian on GoogleIndiana voters go to the polls today in a test of the Republican party’s staying power after the party’s state lawmakers resisted Donald Trump’s bruising campaign to pressure them into redrawing the congressional…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at the Guardian.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from the Guardian
