This Fucking Guy: Trent Lott Was Never Confused About Which Side He Was On

He lost a job title for seventeen days. He never lost anything that actually mattered.

December 5, 2002. The Russell Senate Office Building is packed for Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday, the kind of room where nobody is taking notes because nothing is supposed to happen. Thurmond turns 100 and retires in a month. The party is a lap of honor for a dying man, and every speaker before Trent Lott says something warm and forgettable. Then Lott gets up, unscripted and cheerful, and says the thing that will end his run as Senate Republican leader. He tells the room Mississippi voted for Thurmond's 1948 segregationist run for president, that the state is proud of it, and that if the rest of the country had followed our lead, the nation could have skipped fifty years of trouble.

The room laughs. It applauds. Nobody in it treats this as news, because in that room, among those people, it isn't. It takes a few days for anyone outside the room to notice, and when they do, Lott has exactly one defense on offer: this was a slip, forty seconds of bad phrasing from a guy who's spent thirty years being smoother than this.

That defense doesn't survive an afternoon of somebody pulling his file. This is the fucking file.

The official story

What Lott and his allies told everyone this was.

Within a week Lott is running every apology format Washington offers: written statement, press conference, an interview with Sean Hannity, and eventually thirty minutes on BET getting quietly dismantled by host Ed Gordon, who walks him through his own record on the Martin Luther King holiday before Lott finishes a sentence about how much he loves affirmative action. The line from his office stays consistent throughout: poor choice of words, taken out of context, not who I am. Three years later his own memoir extends the defense back into his childhood, recasting college-age Lott as a well-meaning bystander, confused rather than complicit, born into a world his ancestors built rather than one he chose.

The isolated-slip version had a shelf life of about a week. On December 11, 2002, CNN reported that Lott had said almost the identical thing twenty-two years earlier, at a 1980 rally for Ronald Reagan where Thurmond also spoke. Per a contemporaneous Jackson, Mississippi newspaper account, Lott told the crowd that if Thurmond had won in 1948, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. Lott's office did not deny he'd said it. They just tried a different spin: fiscal policy, not segregation. Same man, same podium format, same sentiment, twenty-two years apart, and somehow still a slip both times.

So let's go back further than 1980.

Sigma Nu, 1962

The riot, the arms cache, and the story Lott tells about his own restraint.

James Meredith enrolled at the University of Mississippi on September 30, 1962, and Oxford burned for it. Federal marshals, National Guard, and eventually 30,000 troops moved in to put down the Battle of Oxford, a night that left two people dead and hundreds wounded. Lott was a senior that year, president of his fraternity, Sigma Nu, and president of the campus interfraternity council. Federal troops raided the Sigma Nu house during the riot, because it was one of the places holding a stash of weapons that got used against the marshals trying to protect Meredith.

Lott's own account, told and retold since, is that he herded his brothers inside and kept them out of it. According to his 2005 memoir, as reported by NBC, he told them, "This is not a panty raid," and by his telling that's the whole story: a level-headed kid keeping his fraternity out of a mob.

Two things complicate that story. First, Lott's own account of what he believed at the time hasn't stayed put. In a 1997 interview, quoted in a Reason magazine review of his memoir, Lott said flatly that you could say that I favored segregation then. By 2005, that becomes softer: he believed it was wrong, cruel even, just inherited. The story gets kinder to him exactly when the political cost of the honest version goes up. Second, and worse: promoting that same memoir in 2005, Lott told the Associated Press he still felt anger over how the federal government had invaded Ole Miss to accomplish something that could have been handled peacefully. Forty-three years after the riot, with every incentive in the world to say his anger was aimed at the mob trying to keep a Black student out, Lott's anger is still aimed at Washington for making the school let Meredith in. That is not the emotional signature of a kid horrified by segregation. It's the emotional signature of a kid horrified by federal enforcement of the alternative.

The vote he forgot to mention

Two years later, Lott didn't restrain anybody. He led.

The panty-raid story, generous reading and all, only covers one night. It doesn't cover 1964, when Sigma Nu held its national convention and delegates from Dartmouth and Duke proposed ending the fraternity's mandatory whites-only membership policy nationwide. Lott, by then the Ole Miss interfraternity council president, helped lead the floor fight against the amendment and won. Dartmouth's chapter seceded from the fraternity over the vote. Sigma Nu stayed segregated for years afterward. This isn't disputed. Lott's own fraternity brother, and future CNN president, Tom Johnson, confirmed it on the record to Time during the same week the Thurmond story broke.

Here's the detail that earns the contempt. Lott's 2005 memoir, written specifically to manage the fallout from 2002, tells the fraternity story in detail: the riot, the panty-raid line, the well-meaning confusion. It never mentions the 1964 vote. Not a sentence. Reason's review of the book, no one's idea of a hostile outlet, caught the omission and named it precisely: a man devoting an entire chapter to defusing a scandal while quietly skipping the one episode that would have made the chapter impossible to write.

The segregation academy's congressman

Nineteen years before the Thurmond toast, Lott was already doing this on paper.

By 1981 Lott is a sitting congressman, and Bob Jones University is fighting the IRS over the tax exemption it lost for banning interracial dating and marriage among its students. Lott doesn't sit this one out. On October 30, 1981, he writes personally to IRS Commissioner Roscoe Egger and Solicitor General Rex Lee, pushing the Reagan administration to reverse the IRS policy and restore the school's exemption, telling Lee, per a law-and-history review of the case, that Congress is to make the laws, not appointed officials.

The following year he goes further and files his own amicus brief at the Supreme Court, pro se, urging the justices to rule for the university. It's on the official record: Congressman Trent Lott, listed by name among the amici curiae in the U.S. Reports. The Court rules against him 8 to 1. Rehnquist alone thought a religious school should keep a federal tax subsidy while expelling students for interracial dating. Lott picked the side that got one vote out of nine.

A quick and extremely relevant tangent (a "side fucker" if you will). John Roberts was 26 years old and working down the hall from all of this, as Special Assistant to Attorney General William French Smith from August 1981 to November 1982, the exact window Lott was writing his letters and filing his brief. Roberts's actual assignment at DOJ that year was keeping the Voting Rights Act weak. Per The Nation's review of his own archived memos, he wrote one in December 1981 titled, with the confidence only a 26-year-old white-shoe lawyer can manage, "Why Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Should Remain Unchanged." He lost that fight. Congress strengthened Section 2 anyway in 1982, over Reagan's own DOJ's objections. Roberts got a second shot thirty-one years later as Chief Justice, writing the 5 to 4 opinion in Shelby County v. Holder that gutted the Voting Rights Act's preclearance formula on the theory that the country had changed enough that the machinery wasn't needed anymore. Ginsburg's dissent compared it to throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet, which is as good a summary of this entire essay's thesis as anyone else has managed. Roberts gets his own full treatment eventually. Consider this one filed under evidence.

The guest list Mississippi wouldn't sign

1989. Mississippi Burning puts the murders back on the front page. Lott's answer is silence.

Alan Parker's Mississippi Burning hits theaters in December 1988, dragging the 1964 Neshoba County murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner back into the national conversation for the first time in a generation. Six months later, on the 25th anniversary of the killings, Congress passes a purely symbolic resolution designating June 21, 1989, as Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner Day, thanking three men who died registering Black voters. It sails through the Senate by unanimous consent, the kind of resolution that says no to it out loud only if you're deranged.

Per SPLC's reporting, the entire Mississippi congressional delegation, Lott included, declined to back it. Not a recorded vote against, since it passed by unanimous consent and there's no roll call to point to. Just a state's whole delegation, in the state where the murders happened, choosing not to attach their names to three dead civil rights workers in the exact year Hollywood had made the subject briefly impossible to avoid. It's a pattern, not an incident. Sixteen years later, in 2005, neither Lott nor his Mississippi Senate colleague Thad Cochran would sign onto a separate resolution apologizing for Congress's historic failure to pass federal anti-lynching legislation, from the two senators representing the state with the highest lynching total in the country.

Mississippi, for what it's worth, stayed a fully covered jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement the entire time, right up until the guy who'd spent 1981 arguing Section 2 should stay weak got to write the opinion ending that, in 2013.

The toast, again

Nothing here was ever a surprise. That's the point.

Go back to December 5, 2002. The room laughs, the room applauds, and forty years of paper trail sits underneath the joke like a foundation nobody checked before somebody built a gaffe narrative on top of it. Lott didn't fall from grace. He got caught on camera saying, in his own unscripted voice, the same thing the record already showed him doing with letterhead and floor votes since he was twenty years old.

And the price he paid for it was almost nothing. He lost the Majority Leader title for seventeen days and kept his Senate seat for five more years. When Congress finally passed a real ethics reform bill in 2007 extending the cooling-off period before former senators could cash in as lobbyists, Lott resigned his seat just in time to dodge it, walking almost straight from the Capitol into a lobbying shop he cofounded with former Senator John Breaux. Breaux Lott Leadership Group became one of the twenty biggest influence operations in Washington within three years, got bought by Patton Boggs, and kept Lott representing clients from FedEx to SpaceX to, eventually, TikTok's Chinese parent company ByteDance. He remains a registered lobbyist as of this writing.

That's the ending. Not redemption, not comeuppance. A man who spent his entire adult life on the winning side of every version of this fight that actually cost something, who said the quiet part out loud exactly once, on camera, and was back to work within the month.

Like what you've read, but not able to switch to paid? Why not buy me a coffee instead! All money goes to help defray the expense of running the site.