Bridgegate Comes Back—Why Now?

Chris Christie is back on TV blaming President Trump for New Jersey GOP losses—while warning that a weaponized Justice Department could be turned into a political tool.

Quick Take

Chris Christie argues Trump is a political “liability” for Republicans in New Jersey, a state where Trump has still run relatively competitive for a Republican.
Trump escalated the feud by reviving talk of Bridgegate, a scandal Christie has long denied involvement in and that ended with key convictions later overturned by the Supreme Court.
New Jersey’s 2025 governor’s race showed Republicans trying to use Trump’s support strategically, including teletown halls instead of high-visibility in-state appearances.
Democrats continue trying to nationalize New Jersey elections around opposition to Trump, while pointing to specific federal actions affecting the state.

Christie’s “Liability” Claim Meets a New Jersey Reality Check

Chris Christie’s latest argument is straightforward: he says President Trump hurts Republicans in New Jersey, and he links that frustration to recent Democratic momentum and the GOP’s struggle to “remember how to win.” The research provided does not include the specific “Mikie Sherrill win” storyline referenced in the headline, so readers should treat that framing cautiously. Still, the broader context is real—New Jersey remains tough terrain for Republicans, even when national winds shift.

Politically, Trump has been more competitive in New Jersey than many recent Republicans, including a loss by six points in the prior election cycle cited in the research. That matters because it complicates Christie’s claim: the state is blue, but not unreachable. Analysts highlighted a recurring dynamic—Trump can turn out low-propensity voters when he’s on the ballot, yet his brand can also spike Democratic turnout and create problems for Republicans in off-year races.

The Trump–Christie Feud Reignites Around Bridgegate and the DOJ

The personal and political history between Trump and Christie explains why this story keeps resurfacing. Christie endorsed Trump in 2016 and stayed close for years, but the relationship deteriorated after Trump’s 2020 loss and then worsened during Christie’s 2024 presidential run, when Christie attacked Trump repeatedly. After Christie criticized Trump on national television, Trump responded by suggesting Bridgegate should be looked at again—an escalation that turns a political fight into an institutional argument.

Christie’s most pointed criticism was not just electoral; it was constitutional in tone. He warned that Trump was trying to convert the Justice Department into “his personal legal representation,” a claim that lands with special force for Americans who believe law enforcement should never be used as a political weapon—regardless of which party benefits. The research also notes Christie calling aspects of the classified-documents investigation hypocritical, arguing different standards were applied depending on who had the documents.

How the 2025 Governor’s Race Showed a Strategy Shift

New Jersey’s 2025 gubernatorial environment offers a concrete way to evaluate “liability” talk. Reporting described Republicans attempting to capture Trump’s energy without overexposing candidates to the backlash his name can generate in the state. GOP candidate Jack Ciattarelli received Trump support via teletown halls rather than frequent in-person appearances, a tactical choice that suggests campaign professionals believed Trump’s endorsement helped—but Trump himself could be a complicating factor.

Democrats, meanwhile, pushed hard to nationalize the contest around Trump. The research describes major surrogates and political influencers swarming the state with a simple message: vote against Trump by voting against Republicans. For conservative voters, that approach fits a familiar pattern—Democrats lean on outrage-driven national narratives even in local races, because it helps unify their coalition. Whether it works depends on turnout, persuasion, and how voters weigh local results.

Policy Flashpoints: When Washington Decisions Hit Home in New Jersey

Beyond personalities, the research lists several federal actions that directly affected New Jersey and gave Democrats tangible talking points. Those include terminating Gateway Tunnel funding, cutting off SNAP benefits that affected hundreds of thousands of residents, and threatening $50 million in K–12 literacy grants. Even voters who dislike progressive spending can recognize the political impact: when a major project or benefit is disrupted, opponents use the disruption to paint Republicans as careless or indifferent.

For conservatives who want limited government done competently, this is the key tension. The right’s strongest argument is not “government does nothing,” but “government should do fewer things—and do them well.” If high-profile decisions create visible disruption, Democrats gain ammunition to argue that conservative governance is chaos. Republicans in blue states then face a hard job: defend fiscal restraint while proving they can protect core services and infrastructure that voters notice.

What’s Verifiable—and What Still Isn’t

The research is explicit about a major limitation: it does not contain the exact story or quotes tying Christie’s “liability” claim to a specific Mikie Sherrill victory narrative. What is verifiable from the cited reporting is the Trump–Christie escalation, the Bridgegate context (including the Supreme Court’s overturning of convictions for key figures), and the strategic reality of New Jersey Republicans trying to balance Trump’s turnout power with his unpopularity in the state.

Ex-Gov. Chris Christie claims Trump is political liability in NJ after Mikie Sherrill win: ‘We forgot how to win’ https://t.co/bGgEJqmmoN pic.twitter.com/J5rHn7yjy2

— New York Post (@nypost) February 2, 2026

As 2026 unfolds, the practical takeaway is less about Christie’s grievances and more about how Republicans win in hostile territory without surrendering principles. Trump remains the dominant figure in the party, but state-level candidates still have to build coalitions around taxes, schools, public safety, and cost of living. When internal party feuds turn into institutional accusations about law enforcement, voters who care about constitutional guardrails will expect evidence, restraint, and clear lines.