
Former President Donald Trump is more vulnerable than he has been since shortly after the Jan. 6 insurrection, but he survived that to remain the undisputed leader of the Republican Party, and he seems to think he can do it again.
The former president's hand-picked candidates fared poorly in Tuesday's midterm election, and the GOP stands poised to win narrow majorities, at best, in the House and Senate, and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman examined Trump's position as party leader.
"The party," Haberman tweeted, "is in the cusp of a broader internal war and not clear how that plays out."
The Department of Justice continues to investigate Trumps role in the insurrection and his handling of classified materials at Mar-a-Lago, and the pause leading up to the election could be over.
READ MORE: 'Welcome to Republicans in disarray': GOP tearing itself apart after Trump tanks another election
"Trump has extremely few major donors who want to do anything for him right now and a number of them are having active conversations about the best way to stop him," Haberman said. "But. Again…sound familiar? Trump has made clear he’s willing to burn it all down if he doesn’t get what he wants, which is maintaining his grip on the product line he’s been developing for six years: The Republican Party."
GOP lawmakers and other elected officials will be forced to choose sides, she said, but some of Trump's strongest allies in Congress aren't particularly influential.
"Anyone not a [prosecutor] who claims to know definitively what DOJ is going to do on either J6 or documents case is pushing a line," Haberman wrote. "The special master was the only play Trump had, and it’s brought some short term embarrassment. But also bought him time."
\u201cA few thoughts related to next week: yes, Trump is more vulnerable than he\u2019s been in a long time.But that has happened before and he\u2019s survived. The party, as telegraphed in @MichaelCBender and me story, is in the cusp of a broader internal war and not clear how that plays out 1/\u201d— Maggie Haberman (@Maggie Haberman) 1668174241