“Get Over It”: Joe Manchin’s Call for Democrats to Accept Trump’s Victory and Cooperate with the Administration

Former Senator Joe Manchin has never been one to shy away from challenging his own party. Throughout his lengthy political career, the West Virginia statesman built a reputation as a moderate willing to buck Democratic leadership when he felt it necessary—a stance that helped him maintain electoral viability in an increasingly conservative state. Now, as an Independent free from party constraints, Manchin is delivering a blunt message to his former Democratic colleagues regarding their approach to President Donald Trump’s administration: it’s time to move on and work with the duly elected president.

In a wide-ranging interview with the BBC’s Katty Kay, Manchin offered candid assessments of the current political landscape, Democratic strategy, and his vision for structural reforms to American governance. His comments provide insight into both the challenges facing the Democratic Party and the perspective of moderate voters who may share Manchin’s pragmatic approach to governance in a divided nation.

“Trump Is the Leader of Our Country”

At the heart of Manchin’s message is a call for basic recognition of political reality and constitutional order. “[Trump] is the leader of our country. Why would you not work with him? Just because he’s a different party? Didn’t vote for him? That’s not a reason,” Manchin stated firmly during the interview. This straightforward acknowledgment of Trump’s legitimate position as president stands in contrast to what some see as ongoing resistance to the administration from certain Democratic quarters.

Manchin, who retired from the Senate after switching his party affiliation from Democrat to Independent, expressed his personal commitment to the administration’s success: “I want Donald Trump to succeed. I want to help wherever I can help. I want to give them my experience of the mistakes I have made that we shouldn’t make again.”

This stance reflects Manchin’s longstanding approach to governance, which prioritizes practical outcomes over partisan posturing. Throughout his Senate career, he frequently crossed party lines to support bipartisan initiatives, sometimes to the frustration of Democratic leadership. His willingness to work with Republican colleagues and presidents earned him criticism from progressive Democrats but helped him maintain support from moderate constituents in West Virginia.

Manchin’s call for cooperation comes at a time of significant partisan division, with many Democrats still processing their defeat in the recent presidential election. His perspective suggests that regardless of personal feelings about Trump or disagreements with his policies, the basic functioning of government requires a willingness to engage with the administration in power.

Democrat Strategy on Immigration: A Tactical Misstep?

Manchin didn’t limit his critique to general principles of cooperation. He specifically addressed what he views as a strategic error in Democrats’ approach to immigration policy, particularly regarding the case of Kilmar Ábrego García. García, a 29-year-old alleged MS-13 gang member from El Salvador, was recently deported after entering the country illegally. According to reports, García had a domestic abuse restraining order against him from 2021.

The former senator suggested that Democratic opposition to García’s deportation represented both a political and practical misstep. “The Democrats are saying, ‘what a horrible situation.’…They’re making more of a case out of this one person who’s an illegal immigrant being sent out of the country that could have been tied to a gang…if I’m a Republican strategist, I am going to keep quiet and just let you all go on,” Manchin observed.

This comment reflects Manchin’s longstanding political instincts, which have helped him navigate the increasingly conservative landscape of West Virginia throughout his career. His assessment suggests that Democrats may be misreading public sentiment on immigration enforcement, particularly in cases involving individuals with criminal histories or gang affiliations.

The García case is part of a broader immigration enforcement effort under the Trump administration, which has prioritized the deportation of individuals connected to gangs like MS-13, which the administration has designated as a terrorist organization. Manchin’s comments indicate he believes public support for such enforcement actions may be stronger than some Democrats recognize, particularly in regions outside traditional Democratic strongholds.

“He’s Doing Exactly What He Said”

Beyond specific policy disagreements, Manchin offered a broader perspective on Trump’s approach to governance in his second term. “He’s doing exactly what he said. People shouldn’t be all upset,” Manchin remarked, adding, “The people who are upset right now lost. This is the system.”

This observation speaks to a reality that sometimes gets lost in political discourse: campaign promises matter, and elections have consequences. Trump campaigned explicitly on stricter immigration enforcement, tariffs, and other policies he is now implementing. Manchin suggests that opposition to these policies, while legitimate in a democratic system, should acknowledge that these approaches were precisely what voters endorsed in the election.

“He’s doing exactly what he said” also highlights the value of political consistency—following through on campaign promises rather than pivoting once in office. This approach, whatever one thinks of the specific policies, creates a clear line of accountability between candidates and voters.

Manchin’s comments reflect his pragmatic view of democratic processes. While perpetual opposition is a legitimate role for the minority party, refusing to accept the results of an election or the legitimacy of the resulting administration undermines the basic functioning of democratic governance.

A New Direction for Democrats: Fiscal Responsibility

Rather than focusing solely on opposition to Trump’s agenda, Manchin suggested an alternative approach for Democrats seeking to reposition themselves for future electoral success. “We’re 36 trillion dollars in debt. There’s no way that we can handle this,” he warned, identifying the national debt as a critical issue that receives insufficient attention from both parties.

“If the Democrats wanted to reposition themselves, why don’t they do it on fiscal policy?” Manchin asked. “Do you ever hear anybody talking about balancing our budget, fiscal policy, living within our means?”

This suggestion reflects Manchin’s own political positioning throughout his career. As a moderate Democrat in a conservative state, he frequently emphasized fiscal responsibility and energy policy as areas where he diverged from his party’s progressive wing. This approach helped him maintain support from moderate and conservative voters who might otherwise have rejected a Democratic candidate.

By suggesting Democrats focus on fiscal responsibility, Manchin is essentially recommending they reclaim ground they have largely ceded to Republicans in recent decades. A focus on responsible government spending and sustainable fiscal policy could potentially appeal to moderate voters concerned about long-term economic stability and generational equity.

This strategic pivot would represent a significant shift for a Democratic Party that has increasingly embraced expansive government programs and spending in recent years. However, Manchin seems to believe it could provide a pathway back to electoral viability, particularly in the moderate and conservative-leaning regions where Democrats have struggled.

Constitutional Reforms: Term Limits and Structural Changes

Perhaps the most ambitious aspect of Manchin’s interview was his advocacy for significant structural reforms to American governance, all of which would require constitutional amendments to implement.

“I believe the president should be one six-year term, Katty. A president should never have to worry about getting re-elected. All they should do is their job,” Manchin proposed. This suggestion reflects a concern that the constant pressure of reelection campaigns distorts presidential decision-making, encouraging short-term thinking and making it difficult to address long-term challenges.

The concept of a single, longer presidential term has been debated throughout American history. Proponents argue it would free presidents from perpetual campaigning and allow them to make difficult but necessary decisions without fear of electoral consequences. Critics counter that electoral accountability is a fundamental check on presidential power and that removing the possibility of reelection could lead to less responsive governance.

Manchin didn’t stop with the presidency. He also advocated for term limits for members of Congress, suggesting a cap of 12 years of service, and for Supreme Court justices, recommending a limit of 18 years on the bench. Both proposals would represent significant changes to the current constitutional structure, which imposes no term limits on legislators or justices.

These proposals align with Manchin’s history of advocating for governmental reform and bipartisanship. Throughout his career, he has expressed concern about the increasing polarization of American politics and the structural factors that contribute to it. Term limits, in theory, could reduce entrenchment and bring fresh perspectives to government institutions.

However, implementing any of these changes would require amending the Constitution, a deliberately difficult process requiring broad consensus across the political spectrum. The fact that Manchin is proposing such fundamental reforms highlights his willingness to think beyond immediate partisan concerns and consider the long-term health of American democratic institutions.

A History of Independence: Manchin’s Final Act as a Democrat

Manchin’s current independence from party affiliation is the culmination of a career defined by a willingness to break with Democratic orthodoxy when he felt it necessary. His final months as a nominal Democrat included a notable disagreement with then-President Joe Biden over criminal justice policy.

In December 2023, before leaving the Senate, Manchin publicly criticized Biden’s decision to commute the death sentences of Brandon Basham and Chadrick Fulks. The two men had been convicted of murdering Marshall University student Samantha Burns during a crime spree that also included the killing of a woman in South Carolina approximately two decades ago.

“After speaking to Samantha Burns’ parents, I believe it is my duty to speak on their behalf and say President Biden’s decision to commute the death sentences for the two men convicted in her brutal murder is horribly misguided and insulting,” Manchin stated at the time. He particularly noted that the victim’s family had written to Biden and the Department of Justice opposing the commutations, but “their concerns were unheard.”

This willingness to publicly challenge a Democratic president on a high-profile decision exemplifies Manchin’s independent streak. It also demonstrates his prioritization of constituent concerns—in this case, the family of a murder victim from his home state—over party loyalty.

The Manchin Model: Political Viability in Red America

Throughout his political career, Manchin demonstrated an ability to win elections as a Democrat in increasingly Republican territory. He served as governor of West Virginia from 2005 to 2010 before winning a special election to the U.S. Senate following the death of longtime Senator Robert Byrd. He subsequently won reelection in 2012 and 2018, even as West Virginia became one of the most reliably Republican states in presidential elections.

This electoral success in hostile territory made Manchin a unique figure in the Democratic Party and gives his strategic advice particular weight. His ability to connect with voters who otherwise rejected Democratic candidates suggests he understands perspectives that may be underrepresented in Democratic Party leadership.

Manchin’s political career offers a potential model for Democrats seeking to compete in rural and working-class regions where the party has lost ground in recent decades. His emphasis on economic issues, fiscal responsibility, and pragmatic problem-solving over ideological purity allowed him to maintain support from voters who might otherwise have rejected a Democratic candidate.

However, the unique factors that enabled Manchin’s success—including his personal connection to West Virginia, his family’s deep roots in the state, and his established political brand—may be difficult for other Democrats to replicate. The increasing nationalization of American politics has made it increasingly challenging for candidates to separate themselves from their national party’s brand.

Reactions and Implications

Manchin’s blunt advice to his former party has generated mixed reactions. Some moderate Democrats and political observers see wisdom in his call for pragmatic engagement with the Trump administration, particularly on issues where common ground might exist. Others, particularly those aligned with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, view such cooperation as potentially legitimizing policies they find fundamentally objectionable.

The debate over how opposition parties should engage with administrations they oppose is not new in American politics. Throughout history, minority parties have had to balance principled opposition against practical cooperation, maintaining their distinct identity while participating in governance. What makes the current moment unique is the degree of polarization and the depth of disagreement over fundamental values and facts.

Manchin’s perspective reflects his experience representing a state where pragmatic cooperation and personal relationships often mattered more than party labels. Whether this approach can translate to national politics in the current environment remains an open question.

For Democrats contemplating their strategy heading into the 2026 midterm elections and beyond, Manchin’s advice offers one potential path forward—focusing on fiscal responsibility, accepting the results of the 2024 election, and seeking areas for constructive engagement with the Trump administration while maintaining principled opposition where necessary.

Whether party leadership and the Democratic base will embrace this approach remains to be seen. The coming months will reveal much about how Democrats position themselves in relation to the second Trump administration and whether they can forge a message that resonates with voters beyond their core constituencies.

Beyond Partisanship: Manchin’s Broader Vision

While much of the attention to Manchin’s interview has focused on his advice to Democrats regarding Trump, his comments about constitutional reform reflect a broader concern about the health of American democracy that transcends immediate partisan considerations.

His advocacy for term limits and structural reforms suggests a belief that current institutional arrangements are contributing to dysfunction and polarization. By proposing fundamental changes to how presidents, legislators, and justices serve, Manchin is inviting a conversation about whether the constitutional structure established in the 18th century remains optimal for 21st-century governance.

These proposals align with Manchin’s career-long emphasis on process over partisan outcomes. Throughout his time in the Senate, he frequently defended institutional norms like the filibuster, arguing that procedural protections for minority viewpoints were essential to stable governance, even when they complicated his own party’s agenda.

This institutional perspective is increasingly rare in contemporary American politics, where procedural arguments often appear transparently tied to immediate partisan advantage. Manchin’s willingness to think beyond the next election cycle and consider fundamental governmental reform reflects his concern with the long-term health of American democracy.

Conclusion: The Manchin Challenge

Joe Manchin’s message to his former party challenges Democrats to reconsider their approach to the Trump administration and their broader political strategy. His call for acceptance of electoral outcomes, practical cooperation, and fiscal responsibility offers one potential path forward for a party seeking to rebuild after electoral defeat.

Whether Democrats embrace this approach or chart a different course will depend on multiple factors, including the specific policies pursued by the Trump administration, the preferences of Democratic voters, and the political calculations of party leadership. What seems clear from Manchin’s comments is that he believes reflexive opposition without an affirmative agenda is unlikely to resonate with the moderate voters Democrats need to regain ground.

As an Independent freed from party constraints, Manchin now occupies a unique position in American political discourse—able to speak honestly about the challenges facing both parties without concern for partisan repercussions. His perspective as a Democrat who successfully navigated increasingly conservative territory offers valuable insights, even for those who may disagree with his specific policy positions or recommendations.

The “Manchin challenge” to Democrats is fundamentally about political realism—accepting current realities while working to change them where possible. Whether this pragmatic approach can gain traction in an increasingly polarized political environment remains to be seen, but his voice represents an important perspective in ongoing debates about the future of American democracy and governance.