Trump defends his political endorsements despite ten defeats in Republican primaries

**Donald Trump claimed his political endorsements are "stronger than ever" and presented a success rate of 97%, even though ten candidates he backed lost Republican primaries this year.

• Trump attributed his defeats to a loyalty decision towards candidates who, he said, had little chance of winning.
• Ballotpedia reported a 97% success rate for Trump-backed candidates in the 2026 primaries, although other counts use different criteria.
• Recent defeats include those of Megan Degenfelder in Wyoming, Cory Mills, and Catalina Lauf in Florida.

President Donald Trump defended the performance of his political endorsements, asserting they are "stronger than ever," despite a series of defeats in Republican primaries this year. In a post made on Sunday night, the president maintained that his endorsements have also helped people without prior opportunities get elected, describing that influence as an honor he takes very seriously.

Trump accompanied his message with a graph attributing a 97% success rate to his candidates for the Senate and governorships in this year's contests. Ballotpedia also reported a 97% rate, counting 220 victories in 227 primary races involving Trump-backed candidates. The figures may vary depending on the set of positions and the criteria used to count each endorsement.

The president's public defense comes as ten candidates backed by Trump have lost Republican primaries so far this year, according to information reported by Yahoo News. Six of those defeats were concentrated solely in August, which again put under scrutiny the president's ability to convert his political support into electoral victories across all contests.

Trump's case also illustrates a common dispute over how to measure the influence of a party leader. The president often presents graphs linking his endorsements to candidates' victories, but his critics may question whether the backing was decisive, especially when it comes to widely favored candidates or races with clear differences between contenders.

Trump's explanation for the defeats

In the same message, Trump offered an explanation for the candidates who failed to prevail in their primaries. He said that the few cases where he backed defeated aspirants were due to a matter of loyalty, as he considered them good people even though, in his opinion, they had almost no real chance of winning.

This formulation allows the president to present the losses as deliberate decisions, rather than merely admitting them as signs of limited influence. Under that interpretation, the endorsement would not always have sought to maximize the probability of a victory, but rather to demonstrate personal support for candidates Trump deemed worthy of his backing.

The rhetorical strategy maintains emphasis on the volume of wins and reduces the political weight of the defeats. However, the results of the primaries remain relevant because they determine which candidates will represent the Republican Party in subsequent elections and, therefore, show the extent of Trump's ability to influence the selection of aspirants.

Trump has insisted that his endorsements favor the arrival of new names in politics, including candidates who had not previously had a significant opportunity. This assertion combines a defense of his party leadership with a justification of the risks he takes when intervening in internal disputes where the outcome seems adverse from the outset.

Recent defeats in several states

Last week, Megan Degenfelder lost the primary for the governorship of Wyoming, while Representative Cory Mills and Catalina Lauf were defeated in Florida in legislative contests. These results added to other losses recorded throughout the month, including those of Minnesota candidate and representative Mike Lindell, Andy Ogles from Tennessee, and congressional candidate Amir Hassan.

The list reflects that the setbacks were not concentrated in a single region or type of election. Trump-backed aspirants competed in legislative and executive races, but the president's support was not enough to overcome their rivals in each of those scenarios.

Available information also indicates that five Trump-backed gubernatorial candidates lost their primaries. Additionally, five of the twelve contests in which the president supported a challenger against an incumbent candidate ended with the defeat of the aspirant who had received his endorsement.

This data is particularly significant because backing a challenger implies a more direct intervention than supporting an already established candidate. When the challenge fails, the outcome can be interpreted as a sign that Trump's political authority faces limits against local structures, the popularity of the incumbent, or the specific preferences of voters.

Upcoming Electoral Challenges

The balance is still not closed, as there are contests involving Trump-backed candidates. Among the upcoming tests mentioned is Anthony DiLorenzo in New Hampshire, scheduled for September 8, as well as appointed Senator Darline Graham in a special primary election in South Carolina.

The South Carolina contest is scheduled for next Tuesday, according to reported information. Its outcome will provide another point of comparison to assess whether presidential support maintains mobilization capacity when faced with rivals competing within a Republican electorate familiar with Trump's preferences.

Each new result can alter the reading of the percentage that the president uses to describe his record. A victory would reinforce his argument that endorsements remain a powerful tool, while another defeat would give more space to those who argue that aggregated figures obscure relevant losses in competitive races or challenges against established candidates.

For now, Trump has chosen to highlight the accumulated success and present the losses as exceptions linked to personal loyalty. The tension between both narratives, the 97% he claims in his graph and the ten recorded losses, will continue to accompany the assessment of his influence over the Republican primaries.