This Libertarian Republican Is Running for Congress in Nevada
Drew Johnson wants to help define the post-Trump GOP.

In Nevada's 3rd Congressional District, a libertarian is running as a Republican to not only unseat a Democrat in Congress, but to help shape the party's post-Donald-Trump future. Will it work?
Drew Johnson grew up in Nashville but moved to the Las Vegas area in 2015. His libertarian bona fides go way back: He was raised in poverty by a single mother, who he says lied about their address so that he would be zoned into a better school district. He calls it his family's personal version of school choice, a subject he remains passionate about.
At age 24, he founded the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a free market think tank now known as the Beacon Center of Tennessee. His first claim to fame came in 2007, when he discovered, through open records requests, that former Vice President Al Gore's Tennessee home used 20 times more electricity than the national average, despite Gore's rhetoric about the importance of environmental stewardship.
Johnson has held fellowships at the Taxpayer Protection Alliance and the R Street Institute. He also served as the opinion editor for the Chattanooga Times Free Press, and under his tenure, the paper endorsed Gary Johnson for president in 2012—which he tells Reason was "one of my prouder journalistic moments."
Now, he hopes that same pro-freedom, limited government agenda will win him a seat in Congress. And it's quite possible that he'll pull it off.
The Cook Political Report lists the congressional race in Nevada's 3rd as one of this cycle's most competitive. The outlet says the race "leans Democratic," in favor of incumbent Rep. Susie Lee, but that the district also leans slightly more Republican than the nation as a whole, picking Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by a single percentage point in 2016. Lee won reelection in 2022 by only 4 points. With voters so evenly divided between two camps, the district is ripe for a candidate not neatly aligned with either party.
But despite touting his work over the years advocating an alternative to the two major parties, Johnson is running as a Republican. He prevailed in a primary field of seven total candidates, capturing 32 percent of the vote. Johnson tells Reason that he credits "one-on-one conversations, door-knocking," and old-fashioned "retail politics" for his success, as well as his platform's appeal to the district's independent streak.
He has also credited name recognition gained from his run for Clark County district commissioner in 2022, which he only lost by 336 votes, or four-tenths of a percentage point. "You had two guys who spent a million dollars plus on TV," he told The Nevada Independent. "We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars reaching out to voters individually."
Johnson evokes Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, two Kentucky Republicans with libertarian streaks, as examples of what he would be like in Congress. And like Paul and Massie, Johnson is willing to play the political game when necessary.
For example, he is critical of tariffs. "I'm alarmed by new tariffs being considered at the Commerce Department," he wrote in a 2023 editorial for the Reno Gazette Journal. "If these new tariffs go into effect, Nevadans will soon face higher prices….American companies would pay the tariffs—and pass the costs on to consumers."
Trump, on the other hand, says "tariff" is "the most beautiful word in the dictionary." Yet Johnson endorsed the former president early, in January, pledging his support in both the general election and the Nevada Republican primary. (Trump reciprocated in August, offering Johnson "my Complete and Total Endorsement.")
Paul and Massie, notably, have not made presidential endorsements for the general election: Massie endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis during the Republican primary, while last month, Paul explained that while he is "persuadable," he is not ready to publicly endorse Trump.
For his part, Johnson says it was clear from early on that Trump would be the Republican nominee, so it made sense to get an endorsement out of the way. Besides, he notes, Kentucky is a reliably red state, whereas Nevada is purple: "If I can help President Trump here, then I'm happy to do it." He says that while Trump "isn't perfect…I can't think of anything Kamala [Harris] is right on."
Johnson allows that if both he and Trump are elected next month, he will happily and openly oppose the president's pursuit of policies that are incompatible with smaller government or individual liberty. "I won't be an obstructionist for the sake of being an obstructionist," he says. "But I'll never do something that isn't constitutional, wastes taxpayers' money, restricts personal freedom, or expands government."
And no matter who becomes the next president, Johnson says Republicans will need to have a "conversation" about what the party looks like in a post-Trump future. And he's running as a Republican, in part, because he wants a seat at the table when they do.
"I want to help lead the conversation about what the post-Trump Republican Party looks like," he says, in contrast to the "statist, populist, anti-free market" party it is today. "I want to be in a position to guide the Republican Party away from big government populism, away from social issues, and towards a more free market, limited government, fiscally responsible, and inclusive direction."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Post-Trump? Act Blue donor #3 in position where confidence is high?
There is no post-Trump Republican Party.
Trump is the Republican Party, and the GOP is Trump.
It’s going to be that way as long as he is alive, and then some.
Just like there was no post Reagan GOP. Brilliant as always sarc. Did you know Reagan also issued tariffs yet?
There will be a post-Trump Republican Party in either 2025 or 2029, depending on how this election plays out. Trumpism certainly isn't going away, but to what extent the party evolves once he's not the central political figure anymore is the real question.
The Bush Republicans and neocons took on Reagan's mantle, but ultimately gave up on anything other than tax cuts and militarism by the time Y2K rolled around. Those people are migrating over to the Democrats now, and that realignment will be all but complete by the next mid-terms (expect the remaining holdouts in the Goldberg faction to make the jump if Trump wins).
The GOP going forward will be an odd pastiche of the Rand Paul/Drew Johnson libertarian types, DeSantis/Vance slicksters, some trad-GOPers like Northam and Kemp, a very small group of anti-intervention/security state ex-Dems like Tulsi, and Boebert/MTG foghorns. The DeStantis and Kemp types will ultimately be the ones running the party because they're more natural operational and strategic leaders.
I hope the post-Trump GOP, whenever it emerges (I suspect Trump's influence will go on way past 2029), drifts back to support for economic liberty. Having two parties that detest free trade and celebrate industrial policy is destructive to the country.
The GOP version of free trade you long for is managed and advantaged trade. Those free trade bills are literally large set agreements of tariffs, regulstions, import caps, etc. It is to free trade as to what ACA is to the healthcare market.
It also consists of regulatory increases for domestic producers to offshore production to less regulated countries. That isn't free trade dummy.
True free trade would be dropping the regulatory barriers here as well as tariffs for all trade partners, us and foreign markets. What you call free trade moves further and further away from that system with every "free trade" deal.
Great argument against something I never said. What's that called? Oh yeah, a strawman.
Free trade simply means your government doesn't interfere with your ability to trade freely with people across political borders. That's it. Your government lets you trade freely. Free trade.
What you call "true" free trade is really a pig called protectionism with a bunch of lipstick on it. You claim free trade isn't "true" free trade unless domestic industry and politically connected companies are protected from competition by using force of government to restrict your ability to trade freely with people across political borders. Government protecting businesses by restricting trade. Protectionism.
Not that hard.
This could be the dumbest reply from you I've ever seen.
Free trade simply means your government doesn’t interfere with your ability to trade freely with people across political borders. That’s it. Your government lets you trade freely. Free trade.
This is not free trade. This is advantaged trade. Because thr government is already involved in markets domestically. The regulatory framework.
Again, assume 2 business, A and B, who both make a widget. The market for widgets is production of A and B. If a regulatory body comes and imposes costly regulations on A, they have advantaged B.
Again, your asinine and quite frankly ignorant definition of free trade is just that.
Then...
What you call “true” free trade is really a pig called protectionism with a bunch of lipstick on it.
You call removing ALL tariffs and ALL regulatory advantages protectionism which is even more retarded.
Just amazingly dumb.
This is not free trade. This is advantaged trade.
Free trade doesn’t mean your government restricts your ability to trade freely because something some foreign government does puts domestic companies at a disadvantage. That’s not free trade. That’s protectionism.
You call removing ALL tariffs and ALL regulatory advantages protectionism which is even more retarded.
You will only accept cutting back on tariffs and industrial policy if everyone else does it first, and you know that they won’t. So you really support using those things to make it “fair” for businesses and to protect businesses. That’s not free trade. That’s protectionism.
All of your arguments are based upon the premise that trade isn’t truly free unless domestic companies feel that it’s “fair”. It’s from the point of view of the producers. It’s only free if they think it’s “fair.” That's not free trade. That's protectionism.
Free trade ignores the concerns of producers because it’s from the point of view of the consumer. It means removing government barriers to the consumer, regardless of what other countries do or what businesses complain about.
You’re changing basic definitions of economic terms in order to dress up economic interventionism as freedom.
I've got an idea here. Why don't you just be honest and say that you oppose free trade, that you support domestic industry, that you want to protect domestic companies and workers from foreign competition, and that tariffs are the best thing ever invented? Trump says those things. You can too.
A) my arguments are based on 20th century economic theory utilizing reality, not idealistic systems. One formulated on reading and analyzing markets. Unlike yours based on ignorance.
B) everything you just wrote is again born of ignorance, not reality or thought.
When you can form an argument based on knowledge and thought let me know.
Note you can’t counter if the simple scenario, the most basic I can provide to describe advantage. You merely ignore and dismiss.
Because you’ve never analyzed or thought the situation at all. You repeat bumper stickers.
You could at least bring up the Bastiat trade theory scenario, but you’re so uneducated you probably don’t even know it. It haw been countered many times by the way.
Oh look, here’s the fucking idiot that didn’t recognize the formal definition of libertarianism, and thought that Wikipedia wrote it because Wikipedia used it.
Morning retard.
I guess Encyclopedia Britannica and hundred other books on libertarianism were all just cribbing from the Wiki page, huh?
You and Jeffy really reinforce each other’s ignorance don’t you.
When your only source is Wikipedia and relying on Jeff, you demonstrate how dumb you are. Sarc is this example.
“Free trade simply means your government doesn’t interfere with your ability to trade freely with people across political borders.”
What about within political borders retard?
He has never thought of a scenarios as they apply without borders showing his ignorance.
I do like the contrast between a reply about the person from someone who lacks the intelligence to discuss the topic, and a thoughtful reply about the topic from an intelligent person.
Thanks!
Your post mentioning the reply about a person is literally about a person. Two actually.
Also nonsense.
You are someone who lacks the intelligence to discuss the topic.
See his definitions of protectionism and free trade right above.
See his definition of libertarianism, yesterday.
It's going right alongside his definition's of law and legislation:
sarcasmic
February.7.2021 at 2:27 pm
So there’s a difference between law (what society deems to be wrong) and legislation (rules backed with government force)?
No way!
https://reason.com/2021/02/07/the-mushroom-moment-manifesto/#comment-8747992
LOL
Whatever you do, ignore this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XeTk4p0CgI
Still not as retarded as his definition for morality.
He actually has one?
Does it involve horse meat?
https://reason.com/2024/07/09/biden-blames-the-elites/?comments=true#comment-10632964
Basically a humpty dumpty definition.
LOL
I hope so.
I'm sick and tired of closet democrats like the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Murkowskis, the Grahams, the Collins, etc.
When is there going to be a post-Hamas Democrat party? A post-10%Joe Democrat party? A post-plagirismKamala Democrat party? A post-illegal Invasion Democrat party?
When will both parties offer America citizens offer a somewhat palatable choice?
Let me guess, it involves a lot of agreeing to disagree with Democrats.
He’s gotta be dreamy to make a Reason article.
Well I hope this guy wins and if he does he may actually be in a position to affect policy. Unlike Chase Oliver who's only accomplishments are helping to put the Democrats in charge of the Senate and moving on to being an inconsequential blow hard who will sink into total obscurity on November 7th.
Really? But JeffSarc informs me he’s gay.
What? He’s gay!? OMG no wonder nobody is voting for him.
This Drew Johnson? Member of R Street Institute? Famed for carbon taxes and labor union expansion?
https://www.rstreet.org/people/drew-johnson/
However, R Street departs from most free-market policy organizations by supporting the implementation of a carbon tax and promoting the expansion of left-leaning labor-union affiliated worker centers.
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/r-street-institute/
Also supports RCV. Quarterly of funding from the biggest liberal donation advocacy groups?
Oddly can't find much on his regulatory policy preference. Seems to be aligned with free markets means high regulations for the US, but from lower regulatory foreigners.
Would be good if reason focused on all his policy viewpoints instead of their favored ones only.
Orange Man Bad tho
Ah. The Democratic platform in a few words.
But he opposes tariffs. Isn't that the only thing that really matters? If a toaster costs me 350 bucks how will I pay my carbon taxes?
Drew Johnson wants to help define the post-Trump GOP.
He'll need to wait a few years.
Johnson evokes Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, two Kentucky Republicans with libertarian streaks, as examples of what he would be like in Congress.
And like Paul and Massie, Johnson is willing to play the political game when necessary.
If you want to win Libertarians - THAT is how you do it. You don't try to cheat the preliminary games and write yourselves in at the championship game.
I've actually been thinking about this ranked-choice deal. What is going to happen when 3-candidates end up tied at the final count? There's really nothing wrong with the way it is; and only more problems, confusion and chance for fraud exists in changing it. Just so 3rd parties can jump to the final game w/o playing primary games first.
My issue with RCV is voter motivation is a construct of representative democracy. Having run offs shows people are actually motivated for their second choice candidates, and not just a hate vote against someone they dislike.
The other problem is RCV gives some voters extra votes while those who vote for the last loser first do not get a 2nd vote. It is unequal.
In my view if you want RCV and to vote for multiple people, your vote should be diluted.
You vote for 2 people you get counted as half a vote for each.
Is this guy libertarianish, libertarian adjacent or full on Koch/Reason small l libertarian? I'm pretty sure if he's Mises Caucusy he wouldn't get a featured article in the libertarian publication of record. And he endorsed Trump over Chase. Is he some kind of homophobe? Really more questions than answers here.
Seems to be more regime libertarian than anything.
Probably. But given the alternatives, he's likely worth supporting if he really does have a chance to win.
The Ted Cruz wing of Republicanism is not close to my cup of tea, but he's preferable to the alternative. I suppose this guy is the same story in a different way.
He is closer to amash and kizinger than Paul or Massie.
Remember when that millionaire Meijer dude that got elected to Amash's old seat? Now he was dreamy.
Libertarian Plus!
Republicans who smoke potProgressive Democrats who don’t like rent controlI want to help lead the conversation about what the post-Trump Republican Party looks like
More nationalist, less immigrant and corporate friendly, and much more worker oriented.
And still anti-free market, pro-tariffs
That's why we strategically and reluctantly vote Harris. If you throw it all into the grab bag, Trump craters the scales on anti-market ideology.
Define free market. Sarc can't.
Trump's tariff talk is a negotiating tool. The man wrote the book on the art of the deal. Let him work.
Around 90% of his discussion about tariffs is to stop other countries from being anti free market. But idiots like shrike and sarc above think this is anti free market.
"Drew Johnson wants to help define the post-Trump GOP."
A "post-Trump GOP" would only show just much the GOP is similar to the democrats.
Why do you hate redo-neo-cons? And blue-blood Red tribe types?
Too bad the New Hampshire libertarians are so icky. They’ve actually got libertarians in office in both parties.
' His libertarian bona fides go way back: He was raised in poverty by a single mother, who he says lied about their address so that he would be zoned into a better school district.'
Not a middle class family, so I guess not a Democrat. And lying is the new libertarian?
His libertarian bona fides go way back: He was raised in poverty by a single mother, who he says lied
Um...