Sinema party switch jumpstarts Arizona’s 2024 Senate battle

Kyrsten Sinema’s Friday party switch has jolted her home state’s 2024 Senate race to life far earlier than expected, raising questions from Capitol Hill to Phoenix about the risk that Democrats could hand the GOP a must-win seat.

The now-independent senator wouldn’t say in an interview with POLITICO whether she’ll seek reelection in two years. Still, multiple Democrats see Sinema’s move as an attempt to shore up her electoral standing — by both avoiding a primary and trying to box out her likely chief opponent, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).

“Does it dilute us? Does it draw away from us? Yes, absolutely,” Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said, adding that he’s already personally assured Gallego of support in any 2024 Senate fight but also warned him to take Sinema seriously. “Anybody who underestimates her is foolish.”

Multiple people close to Gallego, however, said they do not expect he will back down. The outspoken, bilingual Marine Corps veteran has been quietly assembling a Senate campaign team, with his launch now essentially kicked into overdrive. The effect was indeed immediate: A group of Democratic consultants focused on the still-unformed race huddled about the Sinema switch early Friday morning, according to one person familiar with the conversations.

Sinema’s decision places perhaps the biggest burden on someone else entirely: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. The chamber’s top Democrat and his campaign arm are already under enormous pressure, particularly from the left, to unite behind a 2024 Senate candidate from their own party — instead of falling in line behind Sinema.

Grijalva described the party’s job in simple terms: “[T]o coalesce around a Democrat and get that ready. That’s all we can do.”

Chuck Coughlin, an Arizona-based strategist who left the Republican Party in 2017 and is now unaffiliated, said that “people are taking a collective gasp” in his state. “Everybody’s going to be reevaluating the options, because it completely scrambles the deck. It puts her in charge of the narrative.”

But even Sinema allies acknowledge behind closed doors that 2024 won’t be an easy fight for her either. While she’s always been a strong fundraiser, she would lack party resources — like a ground game — that are critical for voter turnout, particularly in a sprawling state like Arizona. Republicans in the state, even if some do support her, would not be expected to assist with that.

National Democratic forces aren’t rushing to take a position on Sinema’s departure, nor are they committing to work against her. Privately, some operatives said they’re waiting for cues from party leadership on how to proceed.

While the Arizona Democratic Party released a statement on Friday criticizing Sinema’s positions on voting rights and corporate tax rates, national Democratic groups were mum.

Spokespeople for both the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Senate Majority PAC, the super PAC aligned with party leaders, declined to comment.

Gallego isn’t the only Democrat being discussed as a potential Senate contender in 2024. Rep. Greg Stanton, a former mayor and Maricopa County Democrat representing Tempe and part of Phoenix, is another name getting floated among political operatives in the state.

Several people close to Arizona’s Democratic delegation said Sinema’s move amounted to an acknowledgment that she couldn’t win a primary. Some insisted she had no path to reelection at all, citing bad blood between the unpredictable senator and the party apparatus.

Sinema’s favorability among Arizona Democrats has slipped the last two years. The progressive polling firm Data for Progress in January found her favorability rating with Democratic primary voters to be just 19 percent, compared to 78 percent for Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

That same survey showed Sinema getting trounced by Gallego in a head-to-head primary battle, with Gallego capturing 74 percent support, compared to 16 percent for Sinema.

Gallego, who has eyed and then passed up a Senate run in the past, has remained mum about his plans. Asked by reporters in the Capitol recently, he said: “I’m answering that in 2023. We’re still in 2022.”

While Sinema’s party switch could affect GOP votes as well, most operatives watching the Senate races said it will hurt Democrats more. Many agree there’s little risk that Sinema would dramatically split the GOP vote, since independent candidates historically pull more from Democrats than they do from Republicans.

A potential three-way Arizona general election race does, however, raise the stakes in Republicans’ ongoing internal feud over candidate quality. After nominating candidates closely aligned with former President Donald Trump, who sought to appeal to the GOP’s right wing, Arizona Republicans lost every statewide race this year.

Gov. Doug Ducey was courted by national Republicans to run in 2022, though he ultimately declined to do so and said earlier this year that he has no interest in running for Senate. But Republicans are again pushing him to get in for 2024 — and should he do so, he would be the early favorite, bringing an already existing statewide campaign infrastructure and immediate access to national donors. GOP Reps. David Schweikert and Andy Biggs are other names being discussed by party operatives in the state.

Sinema would be a rare formidable independent candidate if she runs, positioning herself to capture a significant share of the centrist vote from both parties. But she could be particularly attractive to moderate Republicans, if GOP primary voters continue down the path of choosing nominees who prove off-putting to general election voters.

“We just saw all the MAGA candidates lose, which is a good sign for her,” Coughlin said. “I think what she’s doing is rolling the dice on the continuing evolution of the Arizona electorate.”

One consensus in Arizona political circles: Few were surprised by the news.

In fact, Grijalva said his wife floated this exact scenario just hours after Democrats secured their 51st Senate seat in Tuesday’s Georgia runoff.

“Mona said, ‘What happens to Sinema? I bet you she goes independent,’” Grijalva said. “In terms of her leverage in the Senate, the universe shifted with that victory.”

Related articles

This Trumpist threat proved itself a danger — now it’s forming again



By Alexander Lowie, Postdoctoral associate in Classical and Civic Education, University of Florida

Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia, announced in November 2025 that he will relaunch the group after it disbanded following his prison sentence in 2023.

Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other crimes committed during the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump granted clemency to the over 1,500 defendants convicted of crimes connected to the storming of the Capitol.

Trump did not pardon Rhodes — or some others found guilty of the most serious crimes on Jan. 6. He instead commuted Rhodes’ sentence to time served. Commutation only reduces the punishment for a crime, whereas a full pardon erases a conviction.

As a political anthropologist I study the Patriot movement, a collection of anti-government right-wing groups that include the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Moms for Liberty. I specialize in alt-right beliefs, and I have interviewed people active in groups that participated in the Capitol riot.

Rhodes’ plans to relaunch the Oath Keepers, largely composed of current and former military veterans and law enforcement officers, is important because it will serve as an outlet for those who have felt lost since his imprisonment. The group claimed it had more than 40,000 dues-paying members at the height of its membership during Barack Obama’s presidency. I believe that many of these people will return to the group, empowered by the lack of any substantial punishment resulting from the pardons for crimes committed on Jan. 6.

In my interviews, I’ve found that military veterans are treated as privileged members of the Patriot movement. They are honored for their service and military training. And that’s why I believe many former Oath Keepers will rejoin the group – they are considered integral members.

Their oaths to serving the Constitution and the people of the United States are treated as sacred, binding members to an ideology that leads to action. This action includes supporting people in conflicts against federal agencies, organizing citizen-led disaster relief efforts, and protesting election results like on Jan. 6. The members’ strength results from their shared oath and the reverence they feel toward keeping it.

Who are the Oath Keepers?

Rhodes joined the Army after high school and served for three years before being honorably discharged after a parachuting accident in 1986. He then attended the University of Nevada and later graduated from Yale Law School in 2004. He founded the Oath Keepers in 2009.

Oath Keepers takes its name from the U.S military Oath of Enlistment, which states:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States …”

Informed by his law background, Rhodes places a particular emphasis on the part of the oath that states they will defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

He developed a legal theory that justifies ignoring what he refers to as “unlawful orders” after witnessing the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Following the natural disaster, local law enforcement was assigned the task of confiscating guns, many of which officers say were stolen or found in abandoned homes.

Rhodes was alarmed, believing that the Second Amendment rights of citizens were being violated. Because of this, he argued that people who had military or law enforcement backgrounds had a legal duty to refuse what the group considers unlawful orders, including any that violated constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to bear arms.

In the Oath Keepers’ philosophy, anyone who violates these rights are domestic enemies to the Constitution. And if you follow the orders, you’ve violated your oath.

Explaining the origin of the group on the right-wing website The Gateway Pundit in November 2025, Rhodes said: “We were attacked out of the gate, labeled anti-government, which is absurd because we’re defending the Constitution that established the federal government. We were labeled anti-government extremists, all kinds of nonsense because the elites want blind obedience in the police and military.”

Rebuilding and restructuring

In 2022, the nonprofit whistleblower site Distributed Denial of Secrets leaked more than 38,000 names on the Oath Keepers’ membership list.

The Anti-Defamation League estimated that nearly 400 were active law enforcement officers, and that more than 100 were serving in the military. Some of these members were investigated by their workplaces but never disciplined for their involvement with the group.

Some members who were not military or law enforcement did lose their jobs over their affiliation. But they held government-related positions, such as a Wisconsin alderman who resigned after he was identified as a member.

This breach of privacy, paired with the dissolution of the organization after Rhodes’ sentencing, will help shape the group going forward.

In his interview with The Gateway Pundit, where he announced the group’s relaunch, Rhodes said: “I want to make it clear, like I said, my goal would be to make it more cancel-proof than before. We’ll have resilient, redundant IT that makes it really difficult to take down … And I want to make sure I get – put people in charge and leadership everywhere in the country so that, you know, down the road, if I’m taken out again, that it can still live on under good leadership without me being there.”

There was a similar shift in organizational structure with the Proud Boys in 2018. That’s when their founder, Gavin McInnes, stepped away from the organization. His departure came after a group of Proud Boys members were involved in a fight with anti-fascists in New York.

Prosecutors wanted to try the group as a gang. McInnes, therefore, distanced himself to support their defense that they weren’t in a gang or criminal organization. Ultimately, two of the members were sentenced to four years in prison for attempted gang assault charges.

Some Proud Boys members have told me they have since focused on creating local chapters, with in-person recruitment, that communicate on private messaging apps. They aim to protect themselves from legal classification as a gang. It also makes it harder for investigators or activist journalists to monitor them.

This is referred to as a cell style of organization, which is popular with insurgency groups. These groups are organized to rebel against authority and overthrow government structures. The cell organizational style does not have a robust hierarchy but instead produces smaller groups. They all adhere to the same ideology but may not be directly associated.

They may have a leader, but it’s often acknowledged that they are merely a figurehead, not someone giving direct orders. For the Proud Boys, this would be former leader Enrique Tarrio. Proud Boys members I’ve spoken to have referred to him as a “mascot” and not their leader.

Looking ahead

So what does the Rhodes interview indicate about the future of Oath Keepers?

Members will continue supporting Trump while also recruiting more retired military and law enforcement officers. They will create an organizational structure designed to outlive Rhodes. And based on my interactions with the far-right, I believe it’s likely they will create an organizational structure similar to that of the cell style for organizing.

Beyond that, they are going to try to own their IT, which includes hosting their websites and also using trusted online revenue generators.

This will likely provide added security, protecting their membership rolls while making it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to investigate them in the future.

Exploring the Legality Questions About Venezuela Military Strike

Several Democrats have claimed that the Trump administration’s Jan....

Interview: U.S. Congressman Tim Kennedy

https://www.youtube.com/embed/QKEE-5p3Yjs