Norman and Graham Go to War in Newberry: Explosive Claims, Sharp Contradictions and a Closing-Round Knockout
- Javar Juarez
- 16 hours ago
- 11 min read
By Javar Juarez |CUBNSC/ New progressive Journal | August 18, 2026
NEWBERRY, S.C. — Congressman Ralph Norman and State Senator Darline Graham came to Newberry Tuesday night looking for Republican votes.
What voters got was a heated U.S. Senate debate filled with attacks over Anthony Fauci, immigration, Iran, China, artificial intelligence and who is better prepared to represent South Carolina in Washington.
The two candidates agreed on plenty. Both strongly support President Donald Trump. Both want tougher immigration laws. Both oppose birthright citizenship. Both said Dr. Anthony Fauci should be jailed.
But the debate also showed some major differences.
Norman leaned heavily on his years in Congress and his knowledge of Washington. Graham tried to turn those years against him by asking voters what he has actually accomplished.
And this debate matters right now.
South Carolina is in the middle of a special Republican election for the U.S. Senate. The statewide Republican runoff is scheduled for Tuesday, August 25, with early voting on August 19, 20 and 21 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Voters can check their information at SCVotes.gov.
This was not just another political debate.
South Carolinians are already voting.
Fauci: Norman Goes Further Than Graham
The tone was set almost immediately.
The candidates were asked whether Dr. Anthony Fauci should face prosecution over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fauci served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and became one of the most recognizable federal officials during the pandemic.
Norman did not simply say Fauci should be investigated.
“He ought to be in an orange jumpsuit,” Norman said.
Then he went much further.
“He killed a million people.”
Norman also attacked former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over COVID masking rules and called the government's pandemic response “insane.”
Graham agreed that Fauci should face jail.
“I think he should be in jail as well,” she said.
Those are extraordinary statements from two candidates seeking one of South Carolina's most powerful federal offices.
There is nothing unusual about questioning Fauci's decisions or demanding answers about what happened during COVID.
But accusing one man of killing one million people is something entirely different.
Norman presented no evidence during the debate proving that Fauci was personally responsible for one million deaths.
Voters should understand that difference.
Healthcare and the $200 Million Question
Healthcare brought another big claim.
Graham said one-third of South Carolina's rural hospitals are in danger and pointed to money coming from Washington.
She said President Trump allocated $50 billion for rural hospitals and that $200 million went to South Carolina.
The $200 million number is real.
But there is more to the story.
South Carolina was awarded about $200.03 million for fiscal year 2026 through the federal Rural Health Transformation Program.
That does not mean $200 million is simply being handed directly to struggling hospitals.
The national program contains $50 billion spread over five years, from 2026 through 2030.
The money can be used for several purposes, including technology, workforce programs, expanding access to care and changing how rural healthcare is delivered.
CUBNSC has previously reported on the growing pressure facing South Carolina's rural healthcare system.
Money can help.
But $200 million does not make the larger problem disappear.
Rural hospitals are still dealing with staffing shortages, reimbursement problems, uninsured patients, Medicaid policy, aging populations and the basic cost of keeping hospital doors open in smaller communities.
South Carolinians deserve the whole story when politicians talk about that money.
Iran, Obama and Presidential War Power
Norman also made a striking claim while discussing Iran.
He accused former President Barack Obama of paying Iran “cash bribes in the middle of the night.”
The real history is more complicated.
The Obama administration paid Iran $1.7 billion to settle a dispute that dated back decades.
Iran had paid the United States $400 million for American military equipment before the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The equipment was never delivered.
The settlement returned that money along with negotiated interest.
But there is an irony in Norman bringing up money now.
The current war with Iran has already cost the United States far more.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in July that the conflict had already cost the United States about $37.5 billion.
That is more than 22 times the entire $1.7 billion Obama-era settlement Norman criticized.
And the final price could climb much higher.
Iran has also raised the issue of war reparations during negotiations involving the Strait of Hormuz.
Then came an even bigger question.
Who decides when America goes to war?
Norman acknowledged that Congress has a role once military operations continue beyond certain limits.
But he also suggested Trump could keep using air power or take other military action if necessary.
That raises a constitutional issue.
Congress has the power to authorize war. The president is commander in chief.
The tension between those two powers is exactly why the War Powers Resolution exists.
And there is a simple test voters should consider.
Would Norman be comfortable giving a Democratic president the same power?
The rules cannot change depending on which political party controls the White House.
Graham took a different approach.
“I wholly trust President Trump when it comes to the war in Iran,” she said.
But trust is not the same thing as congressional oversight.
Graham Admits National Security Is Not Her Strength
One of the most surprising moments came when Graham was asked about Taiwan and the South China Sea.
She admitted she did not know much about the subject.
“I’m not that informed on national security,” Graham said. “National security is not my thing, not my area of expertise. But I do support the military.”
It was an unusually honest answer for a political debate.
But it was also a serious admission.
Supporting the military is important.
But supporting the military and understanding national security are not the same thing.
Graham deserves credit for admitting what she did not know instead of pretending.
But if she wins this race, she will have to learn fast.
Norman Calls Israel “God's Country”
Norman was much more comfortable talking about Israel.
“Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East,” he said.
Then he added:
“If you go there, that's God's country.”
Both candidates strongly supported Israel.
Graham, however, was more cautious about sending troops into another conflict. She said the United States should first use economic pressure before considering troops on the ground.
Norman also said America must get spending and the national debt under control.
That is a fair concern.
But Republicans now hold enormous power in Washington, and federal spending and debt remain extremely high.
The Congressional Budget Office projects about $7.4 trillion in federal spending in 2026, with a deficit of roughly $1.9 trillion.
Debt held by the public is projected to reach about $32.1 trillion.
So the spending problem cannot simply be blamed on Democrats.
Republicans have to answer for what happens while they are in charge too.
Did China Buy Land Near a South Carolina Military Base?
The debate then turned to China.
Norman said South Carolina should find property owned by Chinese interests and either take action to get it back or make it difficult to develop.
Then he made a specific claim.
“They bought land in Columbia that is near our military institutions,” Norman said.
Graham appeared to be talking about a different location.
“The military base he's talking about is Shaw Air Force Base,” she said.
She claimed Chinese interests had purchased farmland next to Shaw.
There is a problem.
The candidates did not provide enough information during the debate to prove exactly what property they were talking about.
And they appeared to describe two different places. Norman mentioned Columbia. Graham mentioned Shaw Air Force Base in Sumter County.
The moderator also pointed out that Chinese investment represents less than 1 percent of foreign-owned farmland in the United States.
None of that means the issue should be ignored.
Foreign ownership of land near military installations can absolutely raise national-security concerns.
But if politicians say China owns land next to a South Carolina military installation, voters deserve to see the documents.
CUBNSC will continue looking into that claim.
AI: Graham Says She Is “Personally Very Scared”
Artificial intelligence produced another revealing moment.
Norman talked about AI being used to copy people's voices and create fake images.
He said some government regulation is necessary.
Graham went much further.
“I’m personally very scared of AI,” she said.
She repeatedly connected artificial intelligence to competition with China.
But Graham also supports data centers because she believes America cannot afford to fall behind China in the AI race.
Her position was more detailed when she talked about how those data centers should operate.
Graham said communities need a voice.
She also said data-center companies should have to provide their own water and power infrastructure or help cover utility costs so regular customers are not stuck paying higher bills.
Norman brought up the 10th Amendment and states' rights.
He said local communities should consider water use, electricity demand, home values and whether a project actually benefits the community.
For all their fighting, the two candidates were surprisingly close on this issue.
Both said data-center companies should not get unlimited access to local resources without answering to the people who live there.
Graham Hits Norman on Silfab
Then the debate got personal.
Graham challenged Norman over Silfab Solar and his connections to lobbying interests connected to the company.
Norman rejected the accusation.
He called it “silly season” and said local government was responsible for zoning and incentives.
Then Norman made an interesting statement about solar power.
“I’d rather get it from the sun,” he said.
The problem is that just minutes earlier, Norman had been talking about why he held out on Republican budget legislation.
His explanation?
“The subsidies for electric cars is dumb,” Norman said. “The subsidies for passive solar and wind are stupid. I was cutting it out.”
That deserves attention in South Carolina.
Our state has spent years recruiting companies connected to electric vehicles, batteries and renewable energy.
AESC alone announced a combined $1.62 billion investment and 1,620 jobs connected to its electric-vehicle battery operation in Florence County.
South Carolina's solar industry also supports thousands of jobs.
Norman has every right to oppose federal subsidies.
But voters also have the right to ask what cutting those policies could mean for South Carolina companies and South Carolina workers.
That is not just a Washington debate.
That is an economic-development issue here at home.
Pell Grants and Technical Colleges
The candidates found more agreement when they talked about jobs.
Graham praised the expansion of Pell Grants into short-term training programs for careers such as HVAC and electrical work.
Norman said South Carolina needs to “empower the tech schools.”
He argued that young people need to understand how much money can be made in skilled trades.
That may have been one of the most important South Carolina conversations of the night.
It is one thing to recruit billion-dollar companies.
It is another thing to make sure South Carolina residents can qualify for the jobs they bring.
Technical colleges, apprenticeships and workforce training will play a major role in whether those opportunities actually reach local families.
Norman Says Democrats Opened the Border for Political Power
Immigration quickly brought the fighting back.
Norman claimed Democrats allowed illegal immigration because “they wanted a power base.”
He offered no evidence for that accusation.
The history of deportations also complicates the claim.
Democratic presidents have deported and removed millions of people from the United States.
The Biden administration carried out nearly 4.4 million repatriations through early 2024, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
President Barack Obama was criticized so heavily for deportations that immigration advocates gave him the nickname “deporter in chief.”
That does not mean Democratic and Republican immigration policies are the same.
They are not.
But saying Democrats simply opened the border to build political power is an accusation.
It is not an established fact.
Graham Was Right About New Jersey, But There Is More to the Story
Graham then made a claim that sounded unbelievable.
She said about 6,600 noncitizens were registered to vote in New Jersey and several hundred actually voted.
That part is based on a real incident.
New Jersey officials acknowledged that about 6,600 people who had identified themselves as noncitizens were mistakenly registered through the state's Motor Vehicle Commission system.
But there is an important part Graham did not mention.
Officials said the registrations happened because of a software error.
They did not say Democrats had secretly registered thousands of noncitizens to steal an election.
The registrations were ordered removed, and officials moved to correct the problem.
So Graham raised a real election-system failure.
But that incident does not automatically prove widespread voter fraud or Norman's larger claim that Democrats are using immigration to create a political voting base.
Those are two very different things.
Birthright Citizenship: Both Candidates Want It Gone
Norman and Graham also agreed on birthright citizenship.
Both oppose it.
Graham said women are coming into the United States and staying in hotels so they can give birth here and have American citizens as children.
Norman went further.
“They're advertising signs in Mexico, pay for $4,000 or maybe more to have a baby in America,” he said.
Birth tourism is real.
Federal authorities have prosecuted businesses that helped foreign clients travel to the United States specifically to give birth.
But there are no reliable numbers showing that this is happening on the massive scale sometimes suggested in political debates.
Norman also did not provide evidence during the debate for his specific claim about signs in Mexico advertising $4,000 birth arrangements.
The larger issue is constitutional.
The Fourteenth Amendment has long provided citizenship to people born in the United States.
The candidates can argue that the law should change.
But until that happens, birthright citizenship remains part of American law.
Then Graham Took Over the Closing
For most of the debate, Norman had one major advantage.
Experience.
He has spent years in Congress.
He sounded more comfortable talking about foreign affairs and Washington politics.
Then Graham got her final 90 seconds.
And suddenly Norman's experience became her weapon.
“I’ve done more in 20 days than you have done in 20 years,” Graham told him.
She said she researched Norman's record.
Then came perhaps the sharpest line of the night.
“You named a post office, so good job.”
Graham said taxpayers had spent about $1.7 million on Norman's congressional salary over the years and questioned what South Carolina had received in return.
She then listed actions she said she had already taken, including work on Russia sanctions, the SAVE America Act and anti-abortion legislation.
Then she went after Norman's political ambitions.
“I think you're confused because I don't know if you want to be in South Carolina or Washington,” Graham said.
She reminded voters that Norman had talked about leaving Washington to run for governor and was now trying to return to Washington as a senator.
It was an effective closing attack because Graham turned Norman's biggest strength against him.
Norman spent much of the debate saying he understands Washington.
Graham ended the night with a different question:
After all those years in Washington, what did South Carolina get?
CUBNSC Analysis: Voters Have Plenty to Think About
Neither candidate walked away from this debate without problems.
Norman showed more familiarity with foreign policy and national security.
But he also made some of the night's biggest claims.
He accused Fauci of killing one million people.
He called the Obama-era Iran settlement “cash bribes.”
He said Democrats allowed illegal immigration because they wanted to create a political power base.
And he openly talked about cutting federal support for electric vehicles, solar and wind in a state that has invested heavily in those industries.
Graham had different problems.
Her admission that national security is “not my thing” will be difficult to forget for someone trying to become a United States senator, again.
Her comments about AI sometimes sounded driven more by fear than policy.
But when she discussed data centers, water, electricity and local communities, she raised issues that South Carolina residents are already talking about.
Then she landed the political hit people may remember most.
“I’ve done more in 20 days than you have done in 20 years.”
That was the debate in one sentence.
Norman's argument is that experience matters.
Graham's argument is that experience means little if voters cannot see the results.
Now South Carolina Republicans will decide.
The winner of the Norman-Graham runoff will become the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate and move on to face Democratic nominee Dr. Annie Andrews, Libertarian Kasie Whitener, Constitution Party candidate Mark Hackett and Write in Candidate Catherine Fleming Bruce in the general election.
But this election should be about more than who delivered the best line on a debate stage.
Check the claims.
Check the records.
Ask questions.
And vote.
Javar Juarez is Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia Urban Broadcast Network (CUBN), an independent investigative news outlet based in Columbia, South Carolina, and a member of the South Carolina Press Association. He is also President of the Capital City Chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute.
Comments