John Fetterman poised to flip and become Republican ‘majority-maker’: ex-chief of staff
Sen. John Fetterman's increasingly independent political moves are drawing concern from Senate colleagues and raising questions about whether the Pennsylvania Democrat might eventually leave his party.
Fetterman said last week he would formally switch his party affiliation if Democrats make opposition to Israel part of their official platform — the first time he's laid out specific conditions for departing – and he pointed to recent contested primaries as evidence the party is shifting toward candidates who are "intensely anti-Israel," not just critical of its policies.
One Democratic senator, speaking anonymously to NOTUS, said, "I am concerned" about the prospect of Fetterman switching parties unexpectedly.
Fetterman has also set up a joint fundraising committee with Republican Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA), an arrangement that struck colleagues as unusual. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said he'd "never seen it before." Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), a progressive who has left open the possibility of challenging Fetterman in 2028, called the move "crazy stuff," arguing it helps Republicans in battleground Pennsylvania races.
Fetterman brushed off the arrangement as "nothing sinister," rooted in shared state interests, and fired back at Deluzio over the congressman's earlier campaign donation to Graham Platner, the Maine Senate candidate who dropped out amid a sexual assault allegation he denies.
The senator has increasingly clashed with his party over Israel, the Iran war, and border security, and recently expressed regret for once calling to eliminate the filibuster, praising former Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for opposing its removal.
His standing among Pennsylvania Democrats has slipped sharply — a Quinnipiac poll found his approval at just 19% among Democrats, with 52 percent of voters overall saying they want him to leave the party.
Adam Jentleson, Fetterman's former chief of staff, said he believes Fetterman might switch parties "in order to stay relevant," particularly if Democrats win a narrow Senate majority in November and Fetterman could become a decisive vote. Jentleson also warned Fetterman could side with Republicans on a future Supreme Court nomination.
“I think, if he is the majority-maker, he will flip, because it would give him a massive amount of attention,” said Jentleson, who last year expressed concerns about Fetterman's mental health.
Other Democrats pushed back on the switching narrative. Sen. Peter Welch noted Fetterman "votes Democratic all the time," while Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) urged him to stay, saying his positions still align more with Democrats than Republicans on balance.
“I would just encourage him to stay,” Heinrich said. “I think you can have policy differences, but on balance, with the exception of one or two issues, when you look at what he cares about, I think that looks a lot more like the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. He’s always, always welcome in our caucus.”
‘Slave tourism’ argument in Trump-friendly SCOTUS brief flagged by legal expert
A law professor flagged a legal theory from a Trump amicus brief that he says would let foreigners bring enslaved people into the U.S.
During an interview on the Legal AF podcast, legal expert Paul Gowder talked about American legal scholar Richard Epstein and an argument he made in an amicus brief filed in Trump's birthright citizenship case. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, and Epstein filed the brief on Trump's side.
Gowder explained that Epstein argued that the phrases "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within the jurisdiction" have different meanings in the Constitution. Epstein observed that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" is used in the 14th Amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship, and the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.
Epstein interprets that to mean that those two amendments can only apply to people who are members of society in the United States, or "subject" to the jurisdiction, not simply within it, according to Gowder.
"Richard Epstein wants to read 'subject to the jurisdiction' to mean like in more control of the U.S., basically a member of the U.S. community, not somebody who's just passing through," Gowder explained.
That would allow Epstein to argue, "We can read the 14th Amendment to exclude tourists and to exclude undocumented people," Gowder said. But with slavery and the 13th Amendment, "he just, like, embraces the notion that therefore the 13th Amendment must mean that if somebody from a country that has legal slavery comes to the U.S. as a tourist, they can bring their slaves with them," Gowder explained.
"Like, what?" Gowder said in dismay as he described Epstein's idea as "slave tourism."
Gowder stressed that Epstein isn't a fringe legal scholar and described him as a "very, very famous NYU law professor, worshipped by the [Federalist Society], like basically, for a certain kind of right-wing thinker, people on the right often think he's like the greatest legal mind of his generation."
However, for Gowder, Epstein is "completely nuts."
