Lindsey Graham has a talent for surviving political contradictions that would end other careers. He was John McCain’s closest Senate ally and among Trump’s sharpest critics — calling him a “race-baiting, xenophobic bigot” during the 2016 primary and predicting the Republican Party was in the process of destroying itself.
Then Trump won, and Graham became one of his most visible defenders. He has held that position since.
The Transformation
The explanation Graham offers is consistent: he plays the hand he’s dealt. South Carolina Republicans support Trump overwhelmingly, and Graham represents South Carolina. He is ideologically consistent on foreign policy (hawkish) and the judiciary (originalist), and has adapted on everything else.
His critics say this is opportunism with foreign policy principles bolted on. His supporters say it’s representation. Both things are probably true.
The Committees
Graham serves on Budget, Judiciary, and Foreign Relations. Foreign Relations is his primary identity — he has used it consistently to advocate for military aid to Ukraine, robust support for Israel, and skepticism of diplomatic agreements with Iran and China. His foreign policy positions haven’t changed with the political winds the way his domestic ones have.
The Judiciary Committee gave him a front-row seat for three Supreme Court confirmation battles during Trump’s first term, all of which he supported enthusiastically.
The 2020 Race
Jaime Harrison, a South Carolina Democrat, raised $57 million to challenge Graham in 2020 — at the time the most money ever raised by a Senate candidate. Graham, caught off-guard by the national attention, raised $31M in response. He won by 10 points.
The race illustrated both the nationalization of Senate fundraising and the structural limits of that strategy: money can close gaps but can’t overcome a 20-point partisan lean.
What They’re Watching
Whether Graham’s pivot to Trump loyalty holds in a state where Trump’s margins are large enough that even a 20-point loss in Republican primary support wouldn’t matter — and whether his foreign policy hawkishness creates friction with an increasingly non-interventionist Republican base.