"🚨 SENATE SHOCKER! — LONGTIME DEMOCRAT SENATOR FLIPS AND JOINS REPUBLICANS!"
Former Sen. Joe Manchin has stepped directly into two of the most closely watched Senate contests of the 2026 midterm campaign, publicly backing Republican candidates in Maine and Michigan and promising to help at least one of them on the campaign trail. The move is a notable cross-party intervention, but headlines claiming that a longtime Democratic senator has suddenly “joined Republicans” overstate what actually happened.
Manchin is no longer a Democratic senator — or a senator at all. He left the Democratic Party in May 2024, registered as an independent, completed his Senate term in January 2025 and has not announced that he is joining the Republican Party. His latest move is an endorsement decision rather than a formal party switch.
The most prominent endorsement is in Maine, where Republican Sen. Susan Collins is seeking another term against Democratic nominee Troy Jackson, a former Maine Senate president and logger. During a September 14 appearance on CNBC, Manchin praised Collins as the “soul of the Senate” and said he intended to do what he could to help her campaign.
Collins’ campaign quickly highlighted the remarks, presenting Manchin’s support as evidence of the bipartisan relationships she has cultivated over decades in Washington. Manchin and Collins worked together on a series of cross-party negotiations during their overlapping Senate careers, and this is not the first time Manchin has backed Collins: he also supported her during her 2020 reelection campaign.
Manchin’s intervention is especially notable because Maine is one of the states both parties are watching closely as they compete for Senate control. Collins is the only Republican senator from New England, while Jackson is trying to convert a long-running Democratic effort to defeat her into a victory in November.
The endorsement also fits Manchin’s political identity better than the viral framing suggests. For much of his Senate career, the West Virginian positioned himself as a centrist willing to frustrate Democratic leaders on energy policy, taxes, spending, the filibuster and other major issues. When he left the Democratic Party in 2024, he said both major parties had been consumed by partisan extremism and that he wanted to represent what he called America’s “sensible majority.”
Even after becoming an independent, Manchin continued caucusing with Senate Democrats through the end of his term, preserving his committee standing and helping maintain the chamber’s existing organizational balance. His departure from the party therefore did not amount to a move into the Republican conference.
His support for Collins is also rooted in a long personal and legislative relationship. The two worked together in bipartisan groups that tried to broker agreements during government funding disputes and on major legislation. Collins’ campaign has pointed to their cooperation on the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Electoral Count Reform Act and other measures as evidence of a working partnership that survived partisan changes in Washington.
The Electoral Count Reform Act, enacted after the disputes surrounding certification of the 2020 election, clarified the vice president’s limited role in counting electoral votes and raised the threshold for members of Congress to object to a state’s electoral slate. Collins and Manchin were among the central Senate negotiators behind that bipartisan overhaul.
That history helps explain why Manchin’s support for Collins did not come as a complete surprise. Earlier in 2026, he had already spoken favorably about her and signaled a willingness to help her politically. After the September endorsement, both Manchin and Collins said they were discussing the possibility of appearing together at a campaign event in Maine.
The Maine race itself has gone through major changes during the election cycle. After the collapse of Graham Platner’s campaign, Democrats selected Troy Jackson as their nominee in July. Jackson has emphasized working-class economics and his background in northern Maine, while Collins has focused heavily on her seniority, constituent services and record of securing federal resources for the state.
National Democrats have also tried to link Collins more closely to President Donald Trump, while Collins has continued to emphasize moments when she has broken with her own party or the administration. Manchin’s endorsement gives Collins an additional argument that her support extends beyond the Republican base, but it does not by itself resolve the larger partisan dynamics of the race.
Manchin’s cross-party activity extends beyond Maine. In the same CNBC appearance, he also expressed support for Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan, who is running for an open Senate seat against Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed. CNN reported that Manchin’s support for Collins and Rogers places him behind Republican candidates in two battleground contests with implications for the Senate majority.
That broader pattern is why the “flips” language has attracted attention. A former Democratic senator who once held enormous leverage inside his party is now publicly helping Republican Senate candidates. But political support for Republican nominees is still different from formally becoming a Republican. No public filing or announcement shows Manchin changing his registration from independent to Republican.
Manchin’s post-Senate politics have increasingly focused on criticizing the two-party system and advocating for candidates he views as pragmatic or bipartisan. He has promoted his centrist political philosophy through public appearances and his memoir, while continuing to argue that the ideological wings of both major parties have made governing more difficult.
That approach can produce endorsements that cut against his former party. In Manchin’s case, the choice to support Collins is consistent with a longstanding relationship rather than a sudden conversion to Republican ideology. He has framed the endorsement around Collins’ willingness to negotiate across party lines, not around a declaration of loyalty to Trump or the GOP platform.
The distinction is particularly important because the original viral-style headline describes Manchin as a “longtime Democrat senator” who has “flipped” and “joined Republicans.” Each part contains a piece of truth but compresses the timeline in a misleading way. Manchin was a longtime Democratic senator. He did leave the Democratic Party. He is now backing Republican candidates. But those events happened over several years, and he remains publicly identified as an independent.
The latest endorsement also comes at a time when candidates in competitive Senate races are seeking validation from figures who can appeal beyond their own party’s core voters. Collins has built much of her brand around that strategy, while Democrats argue that her long service in a Republican-controlled Senate still makes her accountable for the party’s national agenda.
For voters, the more useful question is therefore not whether Manchin has secretly become a Republican, but what his endorsement means in the specific Maine contest. He is lending his reputation as a former centrist Democrat to a Republican incumbent with whom he worked closely for years. That may reinforce Collins’ bipartisan message, while Jackson and national Democrats will continue making the case for a change in representation.
There is also a larger Senate story behind the endorsement. Republicans currently hold the chamber, and Democrats need gains across several competitive states to take control. Maine is one of the Republican-held seats that Democrats are contesting aggressively, while Michigan is an open-seat battle where Manchin has also sided with the Republican nominee.
Recent public polling in Maine has shown varying results depending on pollster, methodology and field dates, reinforcing that the contest remains actively fought rather than settled. Polling snapshots should be read as measurements of a specific electorate at a specific moment, not as proof of the eventual winner.
Manchin’s intervention does not change his formal political status. He left the Democratic Party more than two years ago, is no longer in public office and has not joined the Republican Party. What has changed is the degree to which he is willing to use his name and relationships to help Republican candidates in consequential races.
That makes the strongest factual version of the story more precise than the thumbnail: former Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, now an independent, is actively backing Republican Susan Collins in Maine and Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan — a cross-party move that reflects his centrist post-Senate politics, not a newly announced GOP membership.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
