By Derrick Max, 

When I wrote recently that “Virginia’s elections should be about Virginia’s future, not a referendum on President Trump,” I meant it. For months, liberals have tried to nationalize Virginia election – forgoing discussions about schools, taxes, energy, the Youngkin record — focusing instead on endless attacks on Donald Trump. And as the president of a conservative think tank that has criticized the President on tariffs and other issues, it is not that I believe the President is not fair game. What I believe, however, is that the primary focus in a race for governor should be on state issues.     

But politics has a funny way of cutting both ways. When national events affirm the conservative principles of strength, moral clarity, and results, those moments can reshape Virginia’s election. The recent release of Israeli hostages to their families and President Trump’s announced peace framework in the Middle East offer just such a moment.  

This week, more than any other, reveals a global seriousness and moral leadership that contrasts sharply with the chaos and incoherent mental struggles of President Biden over the last four years. This week could reshape the way Virginia voters now view leadership nationally and here at home. 

Trump’s diplomatic breakthrough isn’t just a foreign policy success; it’s a reminder that strength and clarity work. Voters who have grown weary of weakness abroad and moral confusion at home may see a different kind of leadership emerging, one that rewards courage and conviction – and stands against appeasement in both foreign wars and domestic cultural disputes. 

This development also opens the door for Virginia conservatives to connect the dots. For years, Progressives have argued that Virginia’s elections should be a referendum on Trump’s personality first, and his policies second. But when the headlines show his success –when hostages are freed and historic peace talks move forward — the question changes.  

The question now is: Do we want a governor who can work with a President who delivers? Or do we want a governor who won’t even call for a running mate who made morally reprehensible comments to get out of the race? Do we want a governor who won’t take a position on whether or not boys should be allowed in girls locker rooms and compete in their sports? Do we want a governor who stood silent while in Congress as the President was clearly not healthy enough to continue in office?  

That’s not “nationalizing” Virginia’s elections. It’s simply recognizing that good leadership, whether in Washington or Richmond, benefits Virginians when it’s aligned in principle and purpose. One candidate is almost fully aligned with this administration, while the other claims to be more moderate, but has yet to take any position that differs with the most extreme progressive wing of her party. 

The question then becomes: What would it mean for Virginia to elect a governor who can work with a second Trump administration rather than against it? Does the ability to coordinate on issues of agreement and to wield influence on issues of disagreement (like tariffs) with this administration matter to Virginia voters? How would this impact the advancement of the free-market policy goals promoted by the Thomas Jefferson Institute? 

A governor who shares Trump’s (and our) commitment to energy independence, deregulation, parental choice, and worker freedom would not waste two years fighting Washington, D.C. They’d spend those years leveraging Washington’s priorities to Virginia’s advantage. From education reforms to energy policy — alignment would mean action, not gridlock.  This is not hypothetical; millions of federal dollars are at stake!  

At a time when the Trump administration is transforming education through a new K-12 student educational scholarship that requires a Governor’s affirmative agreement to participate, do we want a governor who will support this increase in parental choice or one that will side with teachers unions and bureaucrats and turn down the new federal funding?    

As the Trump administration rightly enforces the original meaning of Title IX as passed by Congress by withholding funds to schools that do not protect female sports or protect locker rooms and bathrooms from the opposite sex, do we want a governor who will risk federal funding by refusing to push back on this new gender insanity?   

As colleges and universities in Virginia are being threatened with losing their federal funding if they don’t comply with common sense guidelines to not discriminate on the basis of race and gender – do we want a governor who is close to the President, or one who will push universities to not sign the compact and instead threaten to sign legislation to withhold state funding if they do sign, thus putting Virginia’s institutions of higher learning at even greater financial risk?   

Finally, as the government shutdown continues to impact Virginians disproportionately, do we want a governor that can advocate for Virginians with the President, or one who will stand with Virginia’s two Senators in opposition to a clean Continuing Resolution, thus risking the jobs and paychecks of hard-working Virginians? 

If the only gubernatorial debate proved anything, it is that one candidate was unwilling to take any positions that aligned with the Thomas Jefferson Institute or with President Trump’s policy agenda. And on simple moral questions of leadership, like the question of Attorney General Jay Jones’ fitness for office, that same candidate refused to take a moral stand. This is not leadership.   

None of this changes the essential truth I’ve argued before: Virginia’s elections must ultimately be about Virginia’s future, our schools, our jobs, our taxes, our freedoms. But when national policy reinforces local confidence, conservatives should not be afraid to say so. If it is a nationalized election the progressives want, give it to them. 

Virginia is home to one of the nation’s most civically engaged Jewish populations—about 150,000 residents, concentrated largely in Northern Virginia. These communities, along with faith-based pro-Israel Christians, have watched the hostage crisis and the rise of antisemitism with deep concern. Many of these voters are not traditional Republicans, but they are moral voters. They want peace, security, and courage from America’s leaders. If even a fraction of these left-leaning voters flip their votes in Northern Virginia, the state could easily turn red. 

If Republicans can continue to speak to those values, support for Israel, moral clarity against terrorism, zero tolerance for antisemitism, and peace in Hamas, they can reach voters who might otherwise lean blue. And the effect extends beyond religious lines. Virginians employed in defense, diplomacy, and national security, many of whom are independent voters in Northern Virginia, care deeply about stability in the Middle East and around the world. When hostages come home and peace takes shape, they recognize the kind of strength that secures not just Israel, but America itself. 

Derrick Max’s views in this commentary do not reflect those of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, which he leads.  This was submitted directly to Bacon’s Rebellion.