Dirty tricks, racy texts and other shenanigans are upending crucial midterm races that could cost Trump his control over Congress
The 2026 US primary season has been marred by unusual controversies, from duplicate-name ballot confusion to a sexting scandal, in contests that could prove decisive for control of Congress. With redistricting having left few genuinely competitive House seats, these disputed primary races carry outsized weight for whether Republicans retain their majority in November.
In Alaska, two candidates named Dan Sullivan appeared on the same ballot, prompting Republicans to unsuccessfully seek the removal of challenger Dan J Sullivan and drawing Justice Department subpoenas amid claims the candidacy was designed to confuse voters; President Trump publicly urged voters to back the "real" incumbent, Dan S Sullivan, who advanced alongside Democrat Mary Peltola. In Oklahoma, Trump-endorsed pastor and congressional candidate Jackson Lahmeyer suspended his campaign after the Daily Mail revealed flirtatious messages he had exchanged with a campaign fundraiser and former Miss Oklahoma USA, prompting Trump to switch his backing to rival Mark Tedford. Elsewhere, a South Dakota Democrat withdrew from his race against Republican Senator Mike Rounds, and the pro-Israel group AIPAC faced scrutiny for funnelling money into Democratic primaries through opaquely named affiliated groups.
- Two Alaska candidates both named Dan Sullivan sparked federal investigation
- Trump-backed Oklahoma pastor quit after racy text scandal exposed
- Contested primaries could sway Republicans' grip on Congress in midterms
New here? Start with this
US midterm elections decide who represents each state in Congress, the national law-making body. They take place halfway through a president’s four-year term, and all seats in the House of Representatives and some Senate seats are contested.
Donald Trump is a Republican president, and his ability to advance laws depends partly on whether Republicans hold enough seats in the House and Senate. If another party controls either chamber, it can set much of the legislative agenda and increase scrutiny of the administration.
Competitive races are often decided by small numbers of voters, so campaigning can focus heavily on opponents’ conduct as well as policies. Allegations, private messages and organised campaign attacks can shape public attention, though their effect varies by race and depends on the evidence and voters’ views.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the view that these controversies could reshape control of Congress would argue that close races can turn on small shifts in turnout, trust and media attention. Personal scandals and allegations of underhand campaigning may undermine candidates’ credibility, distract campaigns from policy messages and depress support among less committed voters, especially where margins are narrow. They would also stress that several simultaneous controversies can reinforce a wider impression of disorder within a party.
The case against
Sceptics would argue that national political loyalties, economic concerns and views of the administration usually matter more than individual campaign episodes, particularly in a polarised midterm environment. Voters may treat allegations cautiously until they are substantiated, and partisan supporters may see attacks as routine political tactics rather than decisive evidence. Without details on the candidates, credibility of the claims or polling movement, it is premature to conclude that the incidents will materially determine congressional control.