Donald Trump’s unusual decision to endorse both Republicans in South Carolina’s gubernatorial runoff turns a test of his influence into a test of what his endorsements actually mean.

Trump’s evolving line: from decisive to hedging

Initially, Trump backed Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette alone before the June primary, giving her a clear edge as the Trump candidate in a crowded field.¹ But as the runoff between Evette and Attorney General Alan Wilson tightened, he reversed course, declaring that “either Republican candidate would be a good pick in South Carolina’s governor runoff.”¹

On Truth Social, Trump framed the move as an act of fairness, saying he “can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other,” and therefore would endorse both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson, insisting that “with either one you can’t go wrong.”²

Conservative media split: strategic genius or signal of weakness?

Conservative outlets broadly agree on the facts but diverge on the implications. Fox News highlights the “double endorsement drama,” emphasizing that backing both candidates looks like Trump “hedging his bets” in a high-profile red-state contest and noting this fits a broader pattern of dual endorsements, such as his infamous “ERIC” pick in Missouri’s 2022 Senate primary.²

The Washington Examiner is more blunt about the cost to Evette, calling the move “a setback” for a candidate Trump had already boosted and depicting the new posture as Trump ultimately “hedging” after previously trying to winnow the field with a single endorsement.³

Power or dilution?

Across conservative coverage, Trump’s influence is still treated as central — the runoff had been “viewed as the latest test of Trump’s immense grip over the GOP and the power of his endorsements.”² Yet by endorsing both sides, he ensures he can claim victory regardless of the outcome, while arguably diluting the very power that once made a Trump endorsement distinct.