U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, the Republican incumbent running for reelection in Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District, one of the most hotly contested House races in the country, has decided his best chance is to dance with the one who brought him — President Donald Trump. 

“Derrick, this guy he fights like hell. He’s in a little bit of a community that tends to be on slightly, a little bit more than we wanted, left, but he loves them all, and he’s very popular, and he’s going to win by a lot,” Trump said of Van Orden at a June rally in Chippewa Falls. “You’re doing well. I understand you’re really doing well. So, thank you and he’s a real fighter … we’ve been friends right from the beginning.” 

Trump’s approval ratings have hit all-time lows in Wisconsin recently, a potential problem for Van Orden, whose seat is one of the Democratic Party’s top targets for flipping this year. The two-term Republican is running for the second time against Democrat Rebecca Cooke, who two years ago lost to Van Orden by only 2.7 points, in a district where Trump beat Vice President Kamala Harris by 7.4 points. 

Between the two campaigns and outside groups, the increasingly heated race is nearing $30 million in spending on mostly negative ads. Van Orden’s ads have alliteratively accused Cooke of being “corrupt” and “communist” while calling her authenticity into question — largely over charges that she’s highlighted her work as a waitress while downplaying her previous work for Democratic political campaigns and interest groups. 

“I think the campaign has gotten intensely negative, with authenticity being a core theme,” Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, said. “I’m seeing authenticity come up on both sides, where Congressman Van Orden and his allies are going after the persona or biography of Rebecca Cooke, particularly her waitressing, has become kind of a flashpoint in this campaign. And for Congressman Van Orden, Democrats are going after him as kind of saying that he’s part of the problem in Washington, and that’s a tried and true strategy for unseating an incumbent, to portray them as part of the problem.”

Congress, Chergosky continued, “has rock bottom approval ratings as an institution, so incumbents are often targeted due to their membership in an unpopular institution. Chergosky expects the attack ads will blanket the airwaves up to Election Day, he said. “I think that this is going to continue to be a very negative campaign.” 

Across the country, a number of vulnerable Republicans have sought to find areas to distance themselves from an unpopular president. Even in Wisconsin, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany — despite a voting record that has been in near perfect lockstep with the Trump administration — has tried to put some breathing room between himself and Trump. 

But Van Orden, a former Navy SEAL, has gone the other way, continuing to vocally support the Trump administration, the war in Iran, Trump’s tariffs, his steering of the economy and the administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown. 

In September, Van Orden was the only member of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation to speak at Trump’s midterm convention in Texas. 

Throughout the year, the 3rd CD has hosted a parade of high-profile administration officials and top-ranking Republicans. 

Van Orden has appeared in his western Wisconsin district with Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling, Small Business Administrator Kelly Loeffler, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Administrator Mehmet Oz and House Speaker Mike Johnson. 

“We are defending, right now, the foundational truths, and I’ve got to have warriors in the room to do it,” Johnson said at a rally in Sparta earlier this month. “There is no stronger warrior than Derrick Van Orden.” 

In recent weeks, Van Orden has made online posts suggesting he would volunteer to join the firing squad in the planned execution of Nidal Hasan, the man convicted of a mass shooting at Fort Hood, accusing Cooke of supporting the “chemical and physical castration of children and men in woman’s locker rooms” and alleging that she wants to bring “Somali fraud” to Wisconsin. 

He’s also posted a number of AI-generated videos of Cooke and other Democratic Party of Wisconsin officials, a tactic that drew a cease and desist letter from the Cooke campaign. Van Orden called the letter a “publicity stunt.” 

A spokesperson for Van Orden did not respond to a request for comment, but in an interview with Channel 3000, Van Orden strongly endorsed Trump’s ongoing war in Iran and argued that the high price of gas and diesel is not only because of the war causing shocks to global oil markets but also due to Democrats “chasing the green new scam” and U.S. oil companies “profiteering.” 

“Is this politically convenient right now? Absolutely not,” Van Orden said in the interview, in which he also referenced the “radical Muslim mullahs” who led the Iranian revolution in the 1970s. “Would it be much easier for Republicans to maintain the House and the Senate if we weren’t involved in this conflict in Iran? Yes. I would be a fool not to acknowledge that. But at some point, we have to deal with this issue that’s been going on for a half a century.”

Chergosky said that Van Orden “doubling down on Trumpism” might be a valid strategy in a district that’s voted for Trump three times. 

The problem, he said, is that those Trump voters haven’t always been reliable when Trump isn’t on the ballot. 

“I think Republicans in this district are making a play to turn out the pro-Trump base, and it’s a base that has delivered for Trump three times, but with any midterm election, we’re going to see a significant drop-off in voter turnout,” Chergosky said. “So a lot of times these midterms come down to the question of, among the voters who voted in the presidential election, which of them stay home this time around? In other words, who drops out of the electorate compared to the presidential election? And so I think the concern for Republicans is that a lot of these pro-Trump, low-propensity voters are going to drop out of the electorate, and I can see them trying to avoid that certainly through Congressman Van Orden’s strategy.” 

But the 3rd CD is also a district that for decades was represented by Ron Kind, a moderate Democrat. Van Orden, with his divisive and confrontational style, has been elected twice deploying a different approach to politics; still, joining forces with some of the most controversial members of Trump’s cabinet could alienate voters. 

At an agricultural roundtable hosted by the Cooke campaign last week, voters complained about the anti-vaccine “conspiracy theories” espoused by figures such as Kennedy resulting in measles outbreaks in the area. At a town hall hosted by the Wisconsin Farmers Union in Gays Mills, attendees lamented the treatment of immigrant workers at the district’s farms and manufacturing plants. 

“Derrick Van Orden has not delivered a successful farm bill out of this Congress,” Cooke said last week. “I don’t think that he’s really done very much at all to support our family farms or people in agriculture across this district.”

In the Channel 3000 interview, Van Orden made the case that he’s been a serious legislator, listing the three committees he sits on.

While in Congress, he voted in favor of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut billions from federal healthcare programs and has hurt the bottom line of rural hospitals in the 3rd CD. After voting for the law, Van Orden has touted his work to provide millions of dollars to rural hospitals in Wisconsin. But that funding provides only $200 million after the OBBBA cut $7 billion in federal healthcare funds meant for the state, an analysis by KFF found last year

From his position on the House Agriculture committee, Van Orden has suggested expanding the H2-A visa program to help the district’s dairy farms get more immigrant labor. But the H2-A program only applies to seasonal farm workers, not the year round workers needed on a dairy farm. Van Orden has also proposed the creation of a new system in which currently undocumented workers return to their home country and pay $2,500 to get in line and wait to be approved for a new visa. 

“They should expect me to work doggedly, like I have been doing. I’ve been an incredibly effective legislator,” he said.

With less than 50 days before the midterm elections, national figures and groups of both parties have increased their attention on Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District, where incumbent Republican Rep. Bryan Steil is running against former VA hospital nurse Mitchell Berman. 

The focus on the 1st CD race comes as the national map of competitive congressional districts has expanded with Democrats increasingly challenging Republicans in areas where President Donald Trump won handily in 2024. A national Marquette Law School poll of likely voters released earlier this week found that Democrats are leading on a generic ballot by 13 points. 

Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., is spending heavily in a number of districts that Trump won by more than 5 points two years ago, The New Republic reported Thursday, signaling that Republicans are being forced to devote resources to defending previously safe seats. 

In Wisconsin, Trump’s PAC plans to spend $90,000 boosting Steil and just $21,000 boosting U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden in the state’s 3rd Congressional District, the New York Times reported. The 3rd CD has previously been one of the most hotly contested seats in the country. 

On Tuesday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced that it was adding Berman to its “Red to Blue” program, signaling a coming influx of national financial and infrastructure support. 

“Wisconsinites in the First Congressional District are tired of Bryan Steil’s votes to make life more expensive for working people while also ensuring that he, his wealthy donors, and Donald Trump can enrich themselves,” Democratic Party of Wisconsin spokesperson Rachel La Due said in a statement. “Mitchell Berman joining the DCCC’s ‘Red to Blue’ program shows what Wisconsinites have seen for years: Bryan Steil has failed to stand up for working families, work to lower costs, or make healthcare more accessible.”

Since Trump’s return to office, Steil has regularly been involved in high profile political efforts, including as one of the lead authors of the bill, championed by Trump, to implement strict national voter ID requirements. 

Steil was first elected in 2018 following the retirement of former House Speaker Paul Ryan. Republicans have won the district by large margins in every congressional election since 1998. 

In 2018, with the seat open for the first time in more than two decades, the DCCC supported Randy Bryce’s run against Steil. Steil still won that race by more than 12 points — in a year in which Democrats won back control of the House nationally. The 1st CD has not been represented by a Democrat since Peter Barca in 1995. 

Zach Bannon, a spokesperson for the National Republican Campaign Committee, said in a statement that Berman’s campaign is “out of touch” with voters in the district. 

“Liberal activist Mitchell Berman is completely out of touch with southeast Wisconsin, pushing a radical far-left agenda that puts politics ahead of common sense,” Bannon said. “While Berman marches in lockstep with the extreme left, Congressman Bryan Steil continues delivering real results for hardworking Wisconsin families.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump tried to maintain power following his loss in the 2020 election by exerting pressure on state election officials to, in some cases, “find” the votes.

Loyalist Republicans in Congress then attempted to deny Joe Biden the Oval Office when lawmakers gathered to certify the Electoral College, bringing to light loopholes and deficiencies in the law that could have denied voters their choice. 

Similar flaws exist for U.S. House elections. 

With concern mounting among GOP lawmakers they may lose control of that chamber following November’s midterm elections, it is not a stretch to imagine state officials could, once again, receive calls from the White House or powerful Republicans in Congress.

What’s less understood is that the House itself has the ability to investigate and potentially overturn the results of any of its 435 races. In a House narrowly controlled by one party or the other, disputes over a handful of seats could become significant. 

“The House and the Senate, they are the final judge of their own elections,” explained John C. Fortier, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

“So, in theory, if a state went through a process and counted all the votes and certified the votes and sent in the results, it still could be questioned by Congress,” he added. “The House has done this in the past. It is much less common today. There was a time in the 19th century where it became extremely common.”

Experts and officials interviewed by States Newsroom pointed to several circumstances that could occur.

State officials could hold back an election certificate, a member-elect could seek to block another member-elect from taking the oath, or legitimate challenges could occur under a federal law dealing with contested elections.

States act first

The first step after votes are counted, or in some cases recounted, is for a state’s top election official, typically a secretary of state, to certify the results and send the certificates of election to the U.S. House clerk. 

But that doesn’t always happen.

New York state election officials held back Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney’s ability to join the House following the 2020 elections amid a legal battle in an extremely close race.

It wasn’t until a state Supreme Court justice ruled in Tenney’s favor that she took her oath of office in February 2021, more than three months after the election.

Fortier detailed another particularly messy example of a disputed House race in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District following the 2018 election.

The state board of elections opted not to quickly certify either Democrat Dan McCready or Republican Mark Harris as the winner given concerns about mail-in ballots. 

It took until late February, nearly four months after Election Day, for the board to call for a new election after Harris testified during a hearing that “his political operative orchestrated a fraudulent absentee ballot scheme,” according to an article from NC Newsline. 

That September, Republican Rep. Dan Bishop won a special election over McCready.

And while the House didn’t step in at the time, it could have. “They essentially deferred and kind of waited it out,” Fortier said. 

Neither of those holdups determined control of the House, but a few state officials deciding not to send certificates to the clerk later this year could have an impact come January.

State officials are not exempt from political influence from Washington, something that was on full display beginning in 2025 when Trump and Republicans in Congress called on state legislatures to redistrict to give them an advantage in this fall’s elections. The results have rolled out even through September.

House members can try blocking members-elect

Another potential roadblock emerges on the first day of a new Congress when any member-elect can try to block another member-elect from being sworn in. 

That happened in 2021 when Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy objected to lawmakers from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin taking their oaths. The Democratic-controlled House voted 371-2 to approve a resolution directing the speaker to swear in everyone. 

The House has two additional options should a member-elect challenge another member-elect taking the oath. 

The first is to “provisionally or conditionally” seat that person and refer the case to the House Administration Committee for investigation. The second is to vote to not seat anyone and refer the dispute to the panel to determine who is entitled to it, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The report notes that “it would be under only the most exceptional circumstances for the House to refuse to seat, even provisionally, a Member holding valid election credentials from the state, and it appears that this third option has happened since 1933 only two times on the first day of the new Congress, and once during the Congress concerning a special election.”

The House voting not to seat anyone “would effectively nullify a certificate of election that was previously issued by the executive authority of the state,” according to CRS. 

How the House can probe election results

The Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 provides another avenue for lawmakers on the House Administration Committee to investigate any election once a complaint is filed, typically by the losing party. 

This has happened dozens of times throughout the decades, including in December 2020, when Iowa Democratic candidate Rita Hart asked the House to decide whether Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks actually won the race, triggering a months-long investigation. 

The FCEA allows the committee to “impound records, ballots, tally sheets, ballot stubs, poll books, ballot boxes, voting machines or other electronic voting systems, and irregular or defective paper and absentee ballots,” according to CRS. 

The committee has the option to use the vote count sent by the state or “conduct its own recount and make its own determinations and findings,” the CRS report states.

House members conducting a probe can even instruct states how to handle ballots.

“Where state law requires destruction of ballots after an election, the committee may notify the state election officials to preserve the ballots despite the state law,” the report says. 

The panel would eventually make a recommendation and the House would decide by a simple majority vote which candidate to seat or whether to declare the seat vacant. 

That vote is the final decision “regardless of whether or not the Member-elect had been sworn in on the first day of the new Congress,” says the report.

Decisions about how to decide any contested elections would be made by the new House that will convene in early January, not the one that will return to Capitol Hill during the lame-duck session that’s set to last several weeks in November and December. 

“It’s not as if the outgoing Congress could just make a decision as to who’s contested and who won the election,” Fortier said. “It’s the new Congress that would do that.”

But not just anyone can file a contest with the House. 

The person who challenges the results “must show that but for the voting irregularities or acts of fraud, the results of the election would have been different and the contestant would have prevailed,” according to CRS. 

Those investigations typically take months. The Iowa case of Hart v. Miller-Meeks began in December 2020 when Hart, the Democrat, filed her contest. 

The Administration Committee held a hearing in March 2021 after Miller-Meeks tried to dismiss the case. Then-Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., argued against those efforts, saying “the American people deserve to know who actually won this election. And the people of Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District deserve to be represented by that person.”

The case ended several weeks later after Hart withdrew her challenge. 

‘As far as someone’s willing to burn it’ 

Casey Burgat, legislative affairs program director and associate professor at George Washington University, said while any member-elect can challenge another member-elect’s ability to take the oath on the first day of the new Congress, it is somewhat unlikely a genuine attempt is made to do that next year.

But that comes with a caveat.

“I think the prospect for the tit-for-tat or the brinkmanship goes up exponentially if it is a close majority,” he said. “That just creates an opportunity for parties to see majority status and find reasons to not seat the other side.”

Whether any potential challenge is taken seriously would likely be determined by who makes it. 

“If it’s just a flamethrower, a Chip Roy-type person, I think that’ll be discounted more than if it’s led by someone like a Mike Johnson or someone in leadership or Steve Scalise,” Burgat said. “I’ve had conversations with a lot of these members and staff of like, how far can this go. And my response to them is often, as far as someone’s willing to burn it.” 

Sarah A. Binder, senior fellow in governance studies at Brookings, said it’s unlikely that any Republican could successfully challenge a Democratic member-elect taking the oath if Democrats have a true majority and have elected their speaker.

“There have been some years where the member-elect whose seat is being challenged is prior to that told to sit down, not to stand when the rest are to be sworn in,” she said. “But other times they actually swear in everybody because your winning seat could still be contested after the swearing in.”

Then there’s the rogue clerk theory

In addition to the possibility a state official holds back an election certificate, a member-elect seeks to block another member-elect from taking the oath and legitimate challenges occur under the Federal Contested Elections Act, some Democrats have raised concerns about the clerk of the House.

The nonpartisan official’s office assembles the list of members-elect once they receive a certificate of election from a state official. And that list determines who votes for speaker, which takes place on the first day of the new Congress before any of the 435 members are actually sworn in. 

The House cannot move on to any other business until a speaker is elected. 

AEI’s Fortier said the clerk’s authority is ministerial and that whoever holds that office doesn’t really have discretion over who to add to the member-elect list once the state sends in the certificate of election. 

The clerk going rogue during the vote for speaker also is highly improbable, he said. 

“I think it is not a very likely scenario, even though I think people are thinking about it. I am not even sure it’s realistic,” Fortier said. “I think this is very difficult to imagine.”

Burgat from GWU had a similar assessment that the House clerk doesn’t hold the authority to disregard election certificates once they arrive or to try to meddle in who can vote for speaker. 

“The minute that the secretary of state or its equivalent certifies the election and transmits to the clerk, a nonpartisan position, it goes on the roll,” he said. “The politics comes in after that fact.”

The clerk’s office wrote in a statement that it “receives and verifies Certificates of Election from every state, placing on the Roll of Representatives‑elect only those individuals whose credentials show they were regularly elected.”