“The system is broken,” declared Libertarian Thomas Laehn as he kicked off his U.S. Senate campaign on October 11.
The Greene County attorney, who became the first Libertarian elected to a partisan office in Iowa in 2018, styled his case against two-party governance as a two-count “indictment” of the 535 members of Congress.
One of his central arguments could appeal to many disaffected Republicans.
Here’s Laehn’s first speech as a Senate candidate in its entirety, delivered from the terrace of Iowa’s State Historical Building in Des Moines, with the state capitol as a backdrop.
His main concerns about the expansion of presidential power haven’t changed since he spoke to me about his possible Senate bid last year.
“THERE’S NO GREATER THREAT TO OUR LIBERTY THAN ARBITRARY POWER”
Laehn began with a cute story about his daughter reciting the Pledge of Allegiance from memory as a preschooler. One of his takeaways: “when we say things over and over again by rote, we stop thinking about the words we’re using” and “what they really mean.”
He thinks that’s true of the Pledge of Allegiance. We are pledging allegiance not only to the U.S. flag, but also to “the republic for which it stands. And I’m very concerned that the word ‘republic’ has become nothing more than an empty sound. A word detached from the reality of the system of government under which we live.”
The candidate took a few minutes to educate the audience about the origins of our republic. (Before going into a legal career, Laehn earned a PhD in political science and taught political philosophy at the college level.)
Ancient philosophers considered three forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. They found all of them “defective,” because “power is concentrated in one person or group of people. And concentrated power is unchecked power. And unchecked power is arbitrary power. And there’s no greater threat to our liberty than arbitrary power.”
The Romans developed a new form of government to fragment power.
“DONALD TRUMP IS NOT THE PROBLEM. JOE BIDEN WAS NOT THE PROBLEM”
Our founders emulated that idea of republican governance when designing the U.S. Constitution, Laehn said. A system of checks and balances “would ensure that power remained divided,” never concentrated in one branch of government. The founders assumed the president, Congress, and judiciary would all try to expand their power. “And the genius of the system is that each branch, while trying to expand its power, was checking the other two.”
When he taught constitutional law and American government, Laehn would tell students the system was set up like a “three-way tug of war.”
“However, as all of you know, today, the system is broken.” He acknowledged he was speaking to some Democrats who are worried about President Donald Trump’s actions, as well as some Republicans who had the same fears about President Joe Biden.
Laehn views the situation differently: “Donald Trump is not the problem. Joe Biden was not the problem. The problem is that Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibilities and is no longer holding the president in check.”
In that tug of war, “Congress has simply let go of the rope, and allowed presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, to expand their power and to endanger our republic.”
Why did Congress cede so much power? Laehn argued that legislators saw political advantages.
They have learned that it is in their electoral self-interest to shift responsibility to the White House. Let the president make the laws. Let the president take our country to war without a declaration of war from Congress.
Let the president bear the burden of governing, while we can do the things that will help us get re-elected—like meet with donors and lobbyists, give empty speeches on the floor of the Senate to an empty chamber, talking to the cameras rather than to our fellow senators.
He sees members of Congress as “willing to sacrifice our republic on the altar of their ambition.”
“THE BIGGEST BOONDOGGLE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR STATE”
Using the language county attorneys employ when filing a criminal indictment (“Comes now Thomas Laehn,” and so on), Laehn declared his campaign launch “a fitting occasion to bring an indictment against Congress,” on two counts.
Count I: “aiding and abetting the violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment” through “the abuse of eminent domain.”
Laehn provided some background on the Summit Carbon Solutions proposed CO2 pipeline, using 45Q and 45Z tax credits in the federal code. The expanded tax credits allow private companies to receive $85 per metric ton of carbon dioxide the company sequesters.
Summit Carbon Solutions “hatched a scheme,” working with ethanol plants, to capture carbon dioxide, liquefy it, and move it from Iowa through South Dakota to North Dakota, where it would be pumped underground. “This is, quite simply, the biggest boondoggle in the history of our state.”
He pointed out that environmentalists oppose the project because building the pipeline would be more harmful than any benefit from capturing the CO2. (Fact check: true.) “The only good this project does” is to enrich major Republican donors, Laehn said. “We just have to follow the money.”
“But there’s something even more nefarious going on,” he added. Summit Carbon was granted eminent domain rights for the pipeline, “in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, which prevents taking of private property unless it is for a “public use,” such as a new road or school. “This project will only enrich Summit Carbon Solutions.”
Not only is Congress not protecting our inherent natural rights, Laehn said, it is “facilitating their violation” by funding the tax credits used to build a CO2 pipeline over people’s property. Congress has the power to eliminate the 45Q and 45Z provisions of the tax code. They could also define “public use” to prevent private companies “from taking our land for their own enrichment.” If elected to the Senate, he would introduce such legislation.
A POTENTIAL RALLYING CRY FOR REPUBLICANS
In Iowa’s recent elections, Libertarian candidates for governor or U.S. Senate have sometimes received a little more than 2 percent of the vote, and sometimes a little less. But the ongoing controversy over Summit Carbon’s pipeline could drive many more Republicans to vote Libertarian in 2026.
For three years in a row, the Iowa House passed eminent domain bills that died in the Senate Commerce Committee. This year, a group of Republican senators forced a floor debate on a pipeline bill (House File 639). After a wild debate in the upper chamber, the GOP holdouts joined Democrats to approve that bill, which would have made it impossible for the Summit Carbon project to move forward.
When Governor Kim Reynolds vetoed House File 639 in June, she enraged many GOP lawmakers—and not only them. Woodbury County Supervisor Mark Nelson, himself a Republican, observed in August that taking private property for a CO2 pipeline is “like a 95 plus percent issue across the state of Iowa regardless of party affiliation.”
Who cares? Reynolds isn’t seeking another term next year.
Here’s why it matters: two Iowa members of Congress may well be on the statewide ballot in November 2026. U.S. Representative Ashley Hinson (IA-02) is the GOP front-runner for Senate. U.S. Representative Randy Feenstra (IA-04) appears to be major donors’ preferred Republican candidate for governor.
Neither Hinson nor Feenstra has done anything to help their constituents fight eminent domain. On the contrary: both voted for this summer’s budget reconciliation bill, which eliminated several beneficial energy tax credits while extending the 45Q and 45Z provisions that are essential for Summit Carbon’s bottom line.
While looking through Federal Election Commission filings for Laehn’s exploratory committee, I noticed that Kim Junker is one of his donors. She’s among the landowners who have frequently come to the state capitol over the past several years, urging lawmakers to block the use of eminent domain for CO2 pipelines. Junker is the only citizen lobbyist I’ve ever encountered who sometimes brought a home-made cake to share, decorated with her key demands.
Cake baked and decorated by Kim Junker, brought to the Iowa state capitol in January 2025 (photo by Laura Belin)
Laehn’s second argument against the two-party system may be a tougher sell with Republicans.
“THAT’S NOT REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. THAT’S STALINIST RUSSIA”
Count II of Laehn’s “indictment” is “aiding and abetting the president’s usurpation of the legislative power.” He noted that some 150 statutes have granted the president emergency powers. Trump used those powers to build a wall along the southern border, redirecting funds Congress had allocated to the Department of Defense.
Whether or not you support a border wall—”I think reasonable minds can disagree”—we should all agree that “the president shouldn’t be able to build walls, use funds, without a statute passed by Congress,” Laehn said.
He repeated that he wasn’t saying the wall was good or bad: “I don’t want to lose sight of the real issue, which is that Congress is abdicating its responsibility for our national security.”
“But it gets worse,” from the Libertarian’s perspective. Since January 20, 2025, Congress has passed 37 bills or resolutions (some of them “fluff”). Meanwhile, Trump has issued 209 executive orders.
Laehn emphasized that he would be saying the same thing if Kamala Harris had won the 2024 election. “Every president in recent memory has abused the executive power.”
He focused on Trump’s recent executive order purporting to make it a crime to burn the American flag. Whether you feel that should be a crime or should be protected as free expression, “Let’s set aside that issue” and look at the power the president is asserting. The day he signed that order, Trump told reporters that people who desecrate the American flag would go to prison for one year.
I would guess the vast majority of conservative or Republican voters aren’t the least bit concerned about Trump’s executive orders, especially his moves to build the wall or ban flag burning.
Laehn encouraged listeners to consider the bigger picture: “Let’s not focus on who presently occupies the White House. Imagine the person you do not want to be our next president,” whether it’s Senator Bernie Sanders or Vice President JD Vance. “Whoever it is, imagine the person you do not want in office having that power. Do we really live in a country where you and I can be in prison, deprived of our liberty, for disobeying an executive order issued by the president? That’s not the United States of America. That’s not republican government. That’s Stalinist Russia.”
He called for Congress to eliminate the emergency powers granted to the presidency and reassert the legislature’s authority, including the power to declare war (last used in World War II).
Laehn closed by reviewing more history. He sees the founding of the U.S. as the “rebirth of liberty” and republican government in the western world. Ever since the fall of the Roman Republic, “the world had lived under a succession of despots and dictators and tyrants and kings until 1776.” He sees the fate of Rome as “instructive”; its republic lasted for 500 years before Romans “lost their liberty to the Caesars.”
“Let it not be said of our generation that we allowed the flame of liberty to be extinguished.”
A LONG ROAD TO NOVEMBER 2026
No Libertarian has ever won a U.S. Senate seat, and Iowa is not likely to make history in that way next year. But if the Senate race is close, even a few extra percentage points for a third-party candidate could be important.
While I’m skeptical a “checks and balances” argument would be a voting issue for many, I do think Laehn could get traction with “no eminent domain for private gain”—if he qualifies for the general election ballot.
That could be a tall order.
The Libertarian Party lost major-party status in Iowa after the 2024 election, when the party’s presidential nominee failed to hit the 2 percent mark here.
So to appear on the Iowa ballot as a U.S. Senate candidate in 2026, Laehn would need to either collect at least 3,500 signatures on nominating petitions (including at least 100 signatures in at least nineteen counties), or be nominated at a statewide Libertarian convention with at least 500 delegates attending.
Republicans would closely scrutinize either path. A GOP lawsuit managed to knock three Libertarian candidates for U.S. House off Iowa ballots last year after finding fault with the party’s convention process. And Democratic Senate candidate Abby Finkenauer almost missed the primary ballot in 2022 after cutting it too close with signatures on petitions.
Assuming Laehn qualifies for the ballot, he will be competing against Democratic and Republican nominees who are raising and spending millions of dollars. Even a bare-bones effort to get his message to a statewide electorate would likely cost hundreds of thousands. FEC filings indicate that Laehn’s exploratory committee had raised $27,581.05 through June 30.
Another possibility: Laehn’s presence in the race could prompt other candidates to talk more about private property rights. Hinson may feel pressure on that front anyway, because she is competing for the GOP Senate nomination against former State Senator Jim Carlin, an outspoken critic of the Summit Carbon pipeline.
Any comments about Iowa’s Senate race are welcome in this thread.
P.S.—Laehn doesn’t appear to have social media accounts, but his campaign website is laehn4iowa.org.
Top photo of Thomas Laehn during his October 11 campaign launch is by Laura Belin.