Skip to main content

Joe Manchin reenters the political orbit with a new independent experiment

(CNN) — At 78, Joe Manchin is stepping back into politics.

A year and a half after leaving office fed up with the major parties, the former West Virginia senator is launching a new effort, the Independent Leadership Council, to recruit and support independent candidates across the country.

“We’re not trying to start another party,” Manchin told CNN in an interview with his daughter, who’s also leading the council. “We’re trying to get a person who can be committed to – and totally committed to – being an independent with an independent voice. They can vote with Democrats and Republicans when they’re right and speak out against them when they’re wrong.”

Manchin kicked off the effort Thursday by convening candidates in West Virginia. Attendees include California Rep. Kevin Kiley, a former Republican running for reelection as an independent; Seth Bodnar, an independent candidate for Senate in Montana; Todd Achilles, an independent candidate for Senate in Idaho; and Michael Bridgford, an independent candidate for the House in Iowa. The group is also eying races in Alaska and Washington.

The initiative comes at a time of deepening disillusionment with both major parties, and as a record high 45% of American adults identify as political independents, according to a Gallup poll released earlier this year.

Advocates for independent candidates believe they have more momentum than in recent memory. In several states, independent candidates for Congress are attracting significant funding and the attention of their opponents from major parties. And with both chambers so closely divided, the Manchins believe an independent lawmaker can wield tremendous influence in the next Congress.

“It doesn’t take too many to say, ‘C’mon, people, get your act together,’” Manchin said. “They can bring them to their knees and make people understand, ‘This is crazy.’”

The Manchins said the summit will serve as an opening dialogue with the candidates, but if they decide to support them, they could campaign for them in person, raise money for them and help organize on the ground in their districts. If they can help even one candidate get elected in November, the father-daughter duo think they can have an impact on the next presidential election.

“Our hope is that this is kind of our pilot, experiment, trying to prove it can be done,” Heather Manchin, a former pharmaceutical executive, said, “and then I think Katie bar the door if it can be done.”

Other people involved in the new group include Adam Brandon and Seth Cohen, who are both senior advisers at the Independent Center, a nonprofit that advocates for independent voters. Brandon is the former head of the conservative group FreedomWorks, while Cohen is the former chief impact officer at Forbes Media and an advocate for voting rights.

Manchin’s disillusionment

The effort may be Joe Manchin’s biggest political project since he retired from the Senate in January 2025. Fed up with the extremes in both major parties, he spent his final months in office as an independent after serving as a Democrat for decades.

Since leaving the Senate, Manchin has published a book, promoted his daughter’s centrist political nonprofit, Americans Together, and continued to make appearances in Washington. Last month, he joined a panel discussion on the national debt at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, where the moderator was one of his former colleagues, Republican Rob Portman of Ohio.

“Manchin is sometimes a Democrat, sometimes an independent, sometimes a Republican,” Portman said at one point. “I just don’t know quite where he is today.”

“I don’t either,” Manchin quipped.

Manchin, a frequent critic of the progressive left, is concerned about the rise of democratic socialists who’ve been winning Democratic primaries across the country, suggesting it’s a product of a party “without a national figure.” But he said Republicans are still too beholden to their extremes as well and argued open primaries would address the broader issue.

“When they have closed primaries, what they were able to do is hijack the system,” Manchin said, bringing up the recent New York primary where candidates backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, did well. “They’ve been able to outperform in a closed system.”

Surveying the current Senate, Manchin lamented what he described as a lack of deal-makers in his mold. He said he was unsure which senators there now are telling their colleagues: “C’mon, guys, let’s go talk. Sit this down. Let’s work this out.”

“That bothers me,” Manchin said.

One of the more independent-minded Senate Democrats these days is Sen. John Fetterman, whose frustrations with his party have raised the possibility he could leave it. Asked if Fetterman should become an independent, Manchin said the Pennsylvania senator “needs to do what John’s comfortable doing.” But he suggested Fetterman, a onetime critic of Manchin, was from a different political mold.

“He’s for all the hardcore Democrat issues that I wasn’t for,” Manchin said.

While Manchin weighed a presidential run in 2024 with the centrist group No Labels — and says he misses his many “friends” in the Senate — he no longer seems interested in running for office.

“I don’t see me getting back into the fray, I really don’t,” he said. “I think I’ve tried it for 42, 43, 44, years and been fairly successful at working with people on both sides and bringing people together. Now I’m trying to help people around the country that want that same outcome.”

An independent moment

Instead, Manchin is deepening his work for independent politicians during a moment when they have a new champion in Congress and viable candidates across the midterm map.

In California, Kiley is seeking reelection as an independent for an open seat in a Democratic-leaning district after a wave of mid-decade redistricting. Kiley, who continues to caucus with Republicans, faces Democrat Richard Pan in November’s general election.

In an interview, Kiley said he wants to be part of building more infrastructure for independents like himself and is “very happy” to be working with Manchin.

“He’s someone who demonstrated during his time in office that he was willing to go against both sides when necessary to serve his constituents,” Kiley said. “[There are] plenty of policy issues where we came out in different ways, but that’s OK. We need more people like that who are independent-minded.”

Despite the optimism around independent candidates in the midterms, they continue to face significant structural challenges, such as gaining ballot access and fundraising without a built-in network, as well as hurdles unique to their own races. In Montana, Bodnar is locked in a standoff with Democratic nominee Alani Bankhead who has resisted pressure to drop out and give the former University of Montana president a more direct matchup against GOP nominee Kurt Alme.

That happened in Nebraska, where Democratic Senate nominee Cindy Burbank ended her campaign to give Dan Osborn, who is running again as an independent after a strong 2024 showing, a clearer field against GOP Sen. Pete Ricketts. And in Alaska’s only congressional district, independent Bill Hill’s fortunes recently rose after his most serious Democratic opponent, pastor Matt Schultz, dropped out and endorsed Hill.

Hill, a commercial fisherman and former superintendent of his local school district, is part of a crowded field running in an all-party primary on August 18 for the seat currently held by Republican Rep. Nick Begich

During a recent interview in Anchorage, shortly after returning from a week on his boat fishing salmon in Bristol Bay, he outlined a varied political history. He said he has voted for Republicans Sen. Lisa Murkowski and the late former Sen. Ted Stevens. Hill said he supports abortion rights — a largely Democratic position — but is also “pro-Second Amendment because firearms are an important tool for my subsistence lifestyle.”

“Like most Alaskans, I don’t fit into a neat little political box,” he said, noting that nearly two-thirds of Alaska voters are not registered with either major party. “I’ve been a lifelong independent, and I wouldn’t run otherwise.”

This story has been updated with additional information.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Trump policy clears way for civil commitment of homeless in some states

▶ Watch Video: Advocates express concern about Trump's push to move homeless people from Washington, D.C. In the year since President Trump signed an executive order aimed at moving homeless people off the streets, federal agencies have given states a green light to expand the use of civil commitment for homeless individuals with mental illness or substance abuse problems.Pending a court challenge, the primary system of funding for organizations combating homelessness could be transformed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to comply with Mr. Trump's executive order. The president's order argues that past policies neglected "root causes" of homelessness and created a public safety risk. Opponents say that the administration would strain the limited number of state treatment centers, criminalize the homeless population and would be an unnecessary shift away from "Housing First" policies. Housing First is an approach that promotes non-conditional access to housing — that is, without requiring sobriety, compliance with treatment or making other demands of recipients. Civil commitmentsMr. Trump's order prompted the Justice and Health and Human Services Departments to prioritize funding for states that carry out involuntary psychiatric treatment — or "maximally flexible civil commitment" of individuals with mental illness who "pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves."His order argued that "public order" would be restored by committing homeless people to "long-term institutional settings for humane treatment." It called on the Justice Department to reverse any consent decrees that would impede these civil commitments. The order also prioritized funding for states and cities that ban urban camping, urban squatting and open illicit drug use. About 30% of those experiencing chronic homelessness have a serious mental illness, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Meanwhile, two-thirds have a substance use disorder or other chronic health condition. The call for a tougher law-and-order approach has prompted multiple Republican states to pass laws that penalize homeless encampments or expand the facilitation of involuntary institutionalizations.Utah recently approved more than $43 million in spending earlier this year in part to target "high utilizers," those who repeatedly cycle through homeless shelters and jail. It is reinforced by a new law that allows these individuals to be put under the supervision of Utah's Division of Adult Probation and Parole.Both Indiana and Louisiana passed bills this year that make it a crime to sleep overnight or camp on public property. Louisiana's HB 211, called the "Streets to Success Act," punishes first-time violators with fines up to $500. To avoid spending up to six months in jail, eligible individuals may sign up for a new "Homelessness Court Program."The program would supervise participants for a year and give them access to substance abuse treatment, mental health services, job training and housing assistance. Those who complete the program could have their conviction erased. Those who don't risk a jail sentence. Participants "may be confined in a treatment facility" or released on a probationary basis, the state law says. The court could also impose rehabilitation conditions on participants. The National Homelessness Law Center called it "one of the cruelest, most extreme anti-homeless bills." Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry defended the homeless courts, arguing they'd help "start removing the homeless off of our streets and into the places that they belong."Shaina Bessonet, a dental hygienist in Louisiana who experienced homelessness from January 2022 to March 2026, testified against the bill before the state legislature. "Just because someone is homeless, because they don't have a place to sleep, doesn't give anybody the right to take them and punish them just for not having a place to go. It's not fixing the problem, it's making it worse," she told CBS News. Devon Kurtz, a policy director at the Cicero Institute, said the executive order and a June Justice Department legal opinion, gives states "considerably more discretion" on their psychiatric care. That opinion made it easier for states to keep those with mental illness institutionalized, rather than provide them with in-home or community-based care. The Cicero Institute, a conservative think tank that was established by Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, advised the White House on the crafting of the executive order."This executive order was really a signal to those agencies that they have to revisit all of these key touch points that are creating these unnecessary burdens and ceilings on state experimentation with policy," Kurtz said.He argued that the Housing First approach and similar ideas have "been rewarding the places that have done the worst."But Jennifer Mathis, deputy director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health, said civil commitment could be more expensive than providing long-term housing and should be "a last resort." Mathis, a Biden-era official in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said the executive order "created an environment where states felt either pressured or permitted to focus on more coercive strategies, to focus less on housing as a solution.""The basic notion behind the executive order seems to be that these people who are unhoused don't deserve housing," she said.  "They're either criminals or they're problem people, and we should basically be forcing them into treatment because it's just their own fault." It's "just wrong at its core," she said. Funding changes stuck in the courtsAdministration officials claim Mr. Trump's order has resulted in $700 million in HHS funding aimed at helping people with addiction and mental illness, as well as homelessness, though there are limits on the funding being used on Housing First or "harm reduction" policies.But the administration's vision of how HUD can "increase accountability" in the over $4 billion in grants proposed for homelessness assistance has been stuck in litigation.Housing First policies have been used by HUD and other federal agencies to address homelessness since 2013. Housing First was initially adopted as a national federal strategy by President George W. Bush's administration in 2004.The department's report on homelessness in 2025 claimed there's been a roughly 27% increase in homelessness since 2013. HUD's 2026 budget cut the available funds for permanent, supportive housing funding from about $3 billion to $2.4 billion, compared to 2024. And the 2026 HUD budget shifts a greater portion of funding — $1.3 billion — to new transitional, temporary housing programs, compared to the approximately $600,000 allocated in the 2024 budget.A recent lawsuit cites a claim by the National Alliance to End Homelessness that the shift towards temporary, transitional housing could kick 97,000 people out of permanent supportive housing.Attorneys general from 21 states and the National Alliance to End Homelessness sued HUD in July over the latest plan for funding. A legal challenge to stop HUD's 2025 plan for funding was successful in April.HUD Secretary Scott Turner said the 97,000 figure was "fear-mongering" and said it was "absurd" that litigation was blocking "long-overdue changes.""No one is being kicked out on the streets," Turner said, arguing in a statement that the HUD plan would provide "more funding than ever before" and give homeless advocates and groups "greater flexibility to invest in the housing and services their neighborhoods need." Ann Oliva, the CEO of NAEH, defended Housing First policies and called the administration's opposition "disingenuous" and lacking context regarding how the increase in housing costs over the last decade "funnel[ed] people into homelessness.""It's like they're saying the emergency room is causing cancer. So we should just get rid of emergency rooms? Because cancer is still happening? That's short-sighted," she said.
Read Next Story