Arkansas presents a complicated Senate choice.
Republican incumbent Tom Cotton is seeking a third term against Democrat Hallie Shoffner and Libertarian Jeff Wadlin. Cotton earned a bachelor’s degree in government from Harvard and graduated from Harvard Law School, served as an Army infantry officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, worked in law and business, served one term in the House, and has represented Arkansas in the Senate since 2015. He now chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee. Shoffner, a Vanderbilt graduate with a Master of Public Service from the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service, spent roughly nine years operating her family’s 2,000-acre seed-production farm. Wadlin studied aerospace and mechanical engineering at the University of Virginia, earned an MBA from Northwestern University, and has worked at Caterpillar and Capital One and run membership nationwide at Sam’s Club before starting his own consulting business.
At this stage, the differences among the three candidates are sufficiently substantial that CIVPAC intends to continue its evaluation through the fall debates before reaching a final judgment. However, Arkansas early voting begins October 19, before the second scheduled Senate debate. We are therefore publishing our current evaluation now rather than waiting until all of the debates have occurred. Source: Arkansas Secretary of State
Tom Cotton
His record on the 2020 election deserves particular credit. Before the January 6 certification, Cotton publicly rejected efforts to have Congress overturn certified electoral votes. He argued that the Constitution gives the states and courts—not Congress—the principal responsibility for resolving election disputes and warned that congressional reversal of certified results would create a dangerous precedent. He subsequently voted against the objections to the electoral votes. Source: Cotton’s January 2021 statement
Cotton’s record on Ukraine and Russia is more complicated than a simple description as either supportive or opposed. He voted against the February 2024 national-security supplemental containing Ukraine assistance. At the time, however, his stated objections focused substantially on the failure to address the American border first and on approximately $19 billion in non-defense spending contained in the legislation. His vote should therefore not simply be characterized as opposition to Ukraine aid. He subsequently voted for the final April package after it returned from the House. Source: Congressional Record and Senate vote April 2024 final vote
In 2026 he supported bipartisan Russia-sanctions legislation aimed at countries helping finance Russia’s war through purchases of Russian energy and praised its Senate passage as a signal that the United States would defend freedom abroad. Source: Cotton statement on Russia sanctions
That position is broadly consistent with important elements of CIVPAC’s foreign-policy and national-defense policy, which places substantial weight on deterring territorial aggression, maintaining alliances and preventing Russia from benefiting from its invasion of Ukraine.
His approach to presidential war powers, however, points in a different direction. Cotton has strongly supported President Trump’s military action against Iran and opposed Senate efforts to require withdrawal from hostilities not authorized by Congress. The wisdom of the war is very much open to debate, and reasonable arguments can be made for and against it. What is clearer is that Congress retains important constitutional authority over sustained military action. Cotton’s reluctance to draw that institutional distinction troubles us. Source: Cotton’s war-powers floor speech
Cotton has likewise supported President Trump’s use of emergency authority for broad tariffs. In 2025 he voted against terminating the national emergency underlying the global tariff program. CIVPAC’s institutional objection to that approach was subsequently reinforced by the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Learning Resources v. Trump. The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the president to impose the tariffs at issue. Congress may delegate tariff authority under appropriately specific statutes, but the sweeping emergency-power theory Cotton supported did not survive judicial review. Cotton again disappoints us by not being more protective of Congress’s constitutional prerogatives. Source: Senate tariff vote Supreme Court decision
This is also a substantive economic disagreement. Our trade policy favors free trade subject to real national-security concerns and fair trade practices by our trading partners. We support targeted measures where foreign subsidies, intellectual-property violations or genuine security risks justify them, but oppose broad protectionism. Cotton appears considerably more receptive to economic protectionism than we are, and we think that approach is counterproductive.
His immigration policy is also substantially more restrictive than ours. Cotton favors aggressive enforcement against illegal immigration but has also advocated major reductions in legal immigration. His RAISE Act would have shifted the system toward skills-based admissions while eliminating several family-based categories, ending the diversity lottery and cutting overall legal immigration roughly in half. Reform of the immigration system is defensible, including greater emphasis on skills and merit. But Cotton’s proposal would substantially reduce the overall flow of legal immigrants into the United States, including foreign talent that we believe contributes to economic growth and American dynamism.
That differs from CIVPAC’s immigration policy, which combines stronger enforcement and employment verification with continued substantial legal immigration.
On regulation and domestic energy production, Cotton is generally closer to CIVPAC than Shoffner. On taxes, the comparison is less straightforward. We do not regard lower taxes as an objective independent of the government’s spending obligations and the need for long-run fiscal balance. Cotton’s emphasis on lower taxes therefore does not by itself amount to a satisfactory fiscal policy.
Cotton’s votes on some of President Trump’s most consequential and, in our view, counter-productive appointments provide another test of institutional independence. He supported Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services and Kash Patel for FBI director. Republican senators broke with the administration on one or more of these nominations; Cotton did not. He also voted for Todd Blanche, first as Deputy Attorney General and again in 2026 as Attorney General. Blanche had previously represented Trump in three criminal cases. His elevation to Attorney General passed 50–49; Cotton voted for confirmation, while Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted against it. Source: Senate confirmation records Blanche Attorney General vote
That does not establish that every one of Cotton’s votes was wrong. It does, however, weaken the case that Cotton is likely to use the Senate’s advice-and-consent authority as an independent institutional check when a Republican president makes consequential and, in our view, counter-productive appointments.
Taken together, Cotton’s institutional record is mixed rather than simple. His refusal to participate in overturning the 2020 election is meaningful evidence of constitutional independence. His more recent positions on tariffs, war powers and presidential appointments provide less evidence that he would insist on congressional authority when doing so conflicts with a Republican president.
Another episode relevant to Cotton’s view of executive power occurred during the civil unrest following George Floyd’s killing in 2020. In a controversial New York Times op-ed titled “Send in the Troops,” Cotton argued that if local authorities could not restore order, President Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy federal military forces to suppress rioting and looting. The article produced an intense controversy, including objections from New York Times employees; the newspaper subsequently said that a rushed editorial process had allowed publication of a piece that did not meet its standards.
CIVPAC has no objection to Cotton making that argument, or to the New York Times publishing it. Questions involving civil disorder and the limits of government power should be argued rather than placed beyond discussion. We do, however, disagree with Cotton’s proposed remedy. When violence exceeds the capacity of civilian law enforcement, the normal military backstop should be the National Guard operating under state authority. Deployment of active-duty federal troops for domestic law enforcement should remain an exceptional measure, reserved for circumstances in which state authorities are genuinely unable or unwilling to maintain lawful order or protect constitutional rights. Cotton’s willingness to invoke federal military power relatively early in the 2020 crisis therefore adds to our concern about his broader tendency to give the executive branch substantial latitude in areas where CIVPAC would place greater weight on institutional checks and divided authority.
Hallie Shoffner
Her campaign focuses heavily on what she regards as the economic pressures facing working families and rural communities. She calls for tax cuts for working families, although her platform does not yet specify the taxes to be cut, the income ranges that would qualify or the resulting cost. She also supports higher minimum wages, stronger labor unions, greater investment in education and infrastructure, protection of Social Security and Medicare, strengthening the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, and expanded support for childcare and paid leave. Those positions place her to CIVPAC’s left on labor policy and on the role of government in several areas, although we share some of her fundamental concerns. Source: Shoffner campaign priorities
CIVPAC supports workers’ right to organize, but our labor policy places greater weight on individual worker choice, secret-ballot elections and right-to-work protections than Shoffner’s program appears to do.
Shoffner’s experience with agriculture has also shaped her opposition to broad tariffs. Her family operated a 2,000-acre seed-production farm growing rice, corn, wheat and soybeans. She has described rising costs, deteriorating markets and tariff uncertainty as among the pressures that led the family to close the operation after the 2024 season.
On immigration, Shoffner describes the present system as broken and calls for reform, but her position on immigration enforcement needs clarification. In June, when asked whether she would vote to defund ICE, she said she would “defund ICE as it exists right now” and would not spend another dollar on the agency until its problems were addressed. She subsequently said, “I don’t want to defund ICE. I want to reform it.” Source: Shoffner’s remarks and subsequent response
There may be a meaningful distinction between abolishing immigration enforcement and refusing to fund the present agency until it is reformed, but Shoffner has not yet made sufficiently clear what agency, funding and enforcement structure she actually favors. That is an important question for the debates.
Shoffner’s position on war powers is much clearer. She said she would have supported congressional efforts to limit President Trump’s authority to continue the Iran conflict without congressional authorization. She has also criticized the fiscal and economic consequences of a prolonged military conflict.
Her foreign-policy program is otherwise relatively thin. Her present campaign platform does not provide a developed discussion of Ukraine, NATO, China, defense policy or the broader American role in the international order. Given the importance CIVPAC places on alliances and deterrence in our foreign-policy framework, those are important omissions for a candidate seeking a seat in the United States Senate.
Her position on federal abortion policy also remains insufficiently specific for a final evaluation. Her campaign discusses maternal health and ensuring access to lifesaving medical treatment but does not presently set out a detailed federal abortion policy. CIVPAC’s own abortion policy broadly favors restoring the Roe/Casey framework through legislation, with strong protection earlier in pregnancy and greater permissible restrictions later.
Shoffner therefore presents a combination of substantial practical agricultural and business experience, positions closer to CIVPAC on tariffs and congressional war powers, and significant disagreements on labor and spending policy. Her lack of governmental experience and the limited detail presently available on major foreign-policy questions leave important issues for the debates to clarify.
Jeff Wadlin
Wadlin is not running on a conventional Libertarian platform. His campaign describes a philosophy centered on personal liberty, constitutional government, competitive markets and fiscal restraint, but he also supports progressive taxation, stronger antitrust enforcement, gradual increases in the minimum wage, collective-bargaining rights and a public-private approach intended eventually to provide universal health-care coverage.
On several institutional questions, his published positions are unusually explicit. Wadlin says senators should defend congressional authority over spending and war powers rather than simply support presidents of their own party. He pledges to accept lawful election results, defend peaceful transfers of power, protect free speech and due process, and oppose political retaliation and government censorship. He also supports ranked-choice voting, easier ballot access, campaign-finance disclosure and congressional term limits.
His trade policy is strongly opposed to broad tariffs. He argues that tariffs raise costs for households and farmers and invite retaliation against Arkansas agricultural exports. He favors freer trade and targeted enforcement rather than economy-wide protectionism. On that question, his position is substantially closer to ours.
Wadlin’s immigration position combines enforcement with legal immigration. He supports effective border security, faster asylum decisions, more immigration judges, workplace verification, removal of people who pose security risks or commit serious crimes, and enforcement against employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers. At the same time, he emphasizes due process, humane treatment, refugee protection and a functioning system of legal immigration. That combination is also relatively close to CIVPAC’s approach.
On climate and energy, he accepts that climate change is real and that human activity contributes to it, but opposes federal selection of favored technologies. His proposed energy mix includes nuclear power, natural gas, renewables, grid modernization and permitting reform. CIVPAC similarly favors a technology-neutral response, although our preferred mechanism is a carbon tax with a border adjustment rather than Wadlin’s approach.
His foreign-policy position is also relatively detailed. Wadlin supports helping Ukraine defend its sovereignty, argues that Russia should not benefit from invading a neighboring country, supports alliances and allied burden-sharing, and opposes undefined or open-ended commitments. He favors diplomacy and sanctions before military action and argues that Congress should reclaim its constitutional war powers. Those instincts overlap substantially with CIVPAC’s foreign-policy approach.
There are also areas of disagreement with CIVPAC. Wadlin supports a balanced-budget amendment, which would impose fiscal constraints different from our preferred approach. His support for increasing the minimum wage and strengthening collective bargaining differs from our labor policy. His position on abortion largely leaves the issue to the states after Dobbs rather than stating a detailed federal policy. His campaign-finance proposals, including reversing Citizens United, also go beyond our campaign-finance policy. Source: Wadlin’s issues platform
One unusually consequential question remains unanswered: how would Wadlin caucus in the Senate? His campaign emphasizes independence from both major parties, but we have not found a public commitment to organize with Republicans, Democrats or neither. That is not procedural trivia. In a closely divided Senate, the decision could help determine which party controls committees, investigative authority and the floor agenda. A candidate asking voters to look beyond party labels should nevertheless tell them what his election would mean for control of the Senate.
The other principal unanswered question about Wadlin is how an unusually detailed platform would translate into judgment under pressure. Unlike Cotton, he has no federal legislative record; unlike Shoffner, he has not operated within a major-party coalition. The debates should provide useful evidence about his command of foreign affairs, fiscal policy and the practical workings of the Senate.
Senate Control and Divided Government
There is another consideration that cannot be evaluated simply by comparing the candidates issue by issue.
CIVPAC has repeatedly placed value on divided government, not because the party holding the White House should mechanically be punished, but because separation of powers works better when Congress has an institutional incentive to scrutinize the executive. With a Republican president, Cotton is not only one senator with his own views. He is also a vote toward Republican control of the Senate, including committee chairmanships, investigative authority and control of the floor agenda.
That does not automatically argue for Cotton’s defeat. We have endorsed candidates from the president’s party when their records of independence, bipartisan governance or policy alignment outweighed the institutional concern. But it raises the bar. Cotton’s refusal to participate in overturning the 2020 election is strong evidence in his favor. His positions on tariffs and war powers and his votes on consequential administration nominees pull in the opposite direction.
The same consideration makes Wadlin’s unanswered caucus question unusually important. If elected, would he help organize the Senate with Republicans, Democrats or neither? Arkansas voters are entitled to know.
Questions for the Debates
Several questions appear particularly important before CIVPAC reaches a final judgment.
Shoffner and Wadlin are scheduled to debate on October 12 and again on October 22. Cotton has declined both events. Cotton and Shoffner have separately accepted an invitation from Salem Media to debate, although a date has not yet been announced. Because early voting begins October 19, some Arkansans will therefore cast ballots before the second debate. The October 12 debate should be particularly useful in assessing Shoffner and Wadlin, while some of the most important questions about Cotton may have to await the proposed Cotton-Shoffner debate or more specific answers from his campaign. Source: Arkansas debate schedule
For Cotton, the central institutional question is how he reconciles his strong defense of congressional limits during the 2020 election certification with his willingness to defer to presidential authority on tariffs and military action. We would also like to hear why, unlike several of his Republican colleagues, he found none of President Trump’s consequential and, in our view, counter-productive senior nominations sufficiently problematic to warrant a negative vote.
For Shoffner, the most important unanswered questions concern foreign policy: the scope of American support for Ukraine, NATO, China, defense policy and the broader international responsibilities of the United States. Her views on federal abortion policy and long-term deficit reduction also require more detail. She should also explain precisely what she means by reforming rather than defunding ICE and what immigration-enforcement structure she would support.
For Wadlin, the principal questions concern implementation and preparedness: how he would translate a broad and unusually detailed platform into actual Senate legislation, how he would approach unavoidable fiscal tradeoffs, how he would exercise judgment on questions of national security for which there is no simple libertarian answer, and with which party, if either, he would caucus in organizing the Senate.
Arkansas therefore offers three candidates whose differences cannot be reduced simply to party identification. Cotton provides a long record of governmental and national-security experience; Shoffner brings substantial agricultural and small-business experience together with a more interventionist domestic economic agenda; Wadlin offers a detailed independent platform combining libertarian institutional instincts with several positions more commonly associated with the center-left.
For now, CIVPAC will continue to review all three candidates as the scheduled debates—and any subsequent Cotton-Shoffner debate—provide additional evidence. Until then, we hope that the above evaluation will be of some help to Arkansas voters in making a difficult decision.