Bill Spadea’s “Team Normal” Chief Strategist Explains Why He Walked Away From Trump in J6 Testimony

TRENTON, NJ – It turns out, Bill Spadea was not the only politician in New Jersey to distance themselves or walk away from President Trump after the 2020 election.

As a New Jerseyan, you might have heard of Bill Stepien long before Donald Trump was president, and subsequently lost his bid for re-election in 2020.

Stepien was the campaign manager for former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He was implicated in the Bridgegate scandal, and then Governor Chris Christie cited Stepien as having a ‘lack of judgment’.

He went on to work for President Trump’s campaign in 2020 as his campaign manager. After Trump’s defeat and amind hi claims of a ‘rigged election’, Stepien parted ways with Trump, claiming he was one of the people on “Team Normal” in the campaign, those who rejected the president’s claims of election fraud.

These days, Stepien works for New Jersey GOP candidate for governor, Bill Spadea, where he serves as the former radio host’s chief campaign strategist.

Bill Stepien, who served as Trump’s campaign manager from July 2020 through the election, emerged as a key figure challenging the former president’s narrative of widespread voter fraud. His testimony, delivered under oath in a deposition played during the committee’s June 13, 2022, hearing, revealed his efforts to ground Trump in reality, his rejection of baseless fraud claims, and his eventual disillusionment with the campaign’s post-election strategy. Stepien’s statements are notable for their sobriety and reliance on data, contrasting sharply with the conspiratorial fervor pushed by Trump and allies like Rudy Giuliani.

As Trump’s post-election strategy veered toward Giuliani’s fraud-focused crusade, Stepien distanced himself from the effort. He described a split within the campaign: “Team Normal,” which included himself, Jason Miller, and others who relied on data and realistic assessments, versus “Rudy’s Team,” which pursued unfounded allegations.

Stepien said, “I didn’t think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional at that point in time,” referring to Giuliani’s tactics, such as promoting debunked claims of dead voters and rigged machines. This frustration led him to exit the campaign shortly after the election.

He explained, “That led to me stepping away,” signaling his refusal to endorse the direction Trump and Giuliani were taking.

His departure was a tacit rebuke of the stolen-election narrative, as he chose to abandon a fight he deemed unprincipled and unwinnable.

One of Stepien’s most telling interventions occurred on election night, November 3, 2020. As early results rolled in, Trump considered declaring victory based on incomplete tallies that showed him ahead in key states—a phenomenon Stepien later tied to the “red mirage,” where in-person votes (favoring Republicans) were counted before mail-in ballots (favoring Democrats).

Stepien urged caution. He testified, “My recommendation was to say that votes were still being counted, it’s too early to tell, too early to call the race.” He elaborated, “I told him that it was too early to know what the night was going to bring us and that we should wait until we had more information.” Trump rejected this advice, opting instead to declare, as he did around 2:30 a.m. on November 4, that “frankly, we did win this election.” Stepien recalled Trump’s response: “He disagreed with that. I don’t recall the particular words he used, but he thought I was wrong, and he told me so, and they were going to go in a different direction.” This exchange highlighted Stepien’s early attempt to counter Trump’s inclination to claim a victory unsupported by the full vote count, laying bare the disconnect between evidence and Trump’s rhetoric.

By November 5, 2020, two days after the election, Stepien and other senior advisers met with Trump to assess the campaign’s next steps as Joe Biden pulled ahead in battleground states. Stepien delivered a grim prognosis, estimating the odds of successfully challenging the results at a mere “5%, maybe 10%.” He told the committee, “We told him—the group that went over there—outlined my belief and chances for success at this point, and we pegged it at 5%, maybe 10%, based on our belief at that point.” He described the situation as “very, very, very bleak,” reflecting his view that the campaign lacked the evidence or legal basis to overturn Biden’s lead. This assessment directly undercut Trump’s public insistence that the election was being stolen through fraud, as Stepien’s low odds were rooted in data and vote totals, not conspiracy theories. His candidness in this meeting underscored his resistance to the stolen-election narrative Trump was already amplifying.

Stepien also addressed one of Trump’s central fraud claims: that late shifts in vote totals were evidence of cheating. He explained this as a predictable outcome of the “red mirage,” a term for the initial Republican lead in states that counted Election Day votes first, followed by Democratic gains as mail-in ballots were processed. He testified, “I was aware of the ‘red mirage’ phenomenon,” noting that this pattern was “something we had anticipated.” This understanding debunked Trump’s assertions that late-counted ballots were inherently suspicious or fraudulent. Stepien’s acknowledgment of this electoral dynamic showed that the campaign had no basis to cry foul over standard vote-counting procedures, further dismantling the stolen-election myth.

Rejecting “Team Rudy” and Stepping Away

Broader Implications of Stepien’s Testimony

Stepien’s statements painted a picture of a campaign manager caught between loyalty to Trump and fidelity to facts. Unlike Giuliani or Sidney Powell, who fed Trump’s fraud obsession, Stepien aligned with figures like Bill Barr, who also dismissed election irregularities as inconsequential. His testimony revealed not just his personal stance but the internal discord within Trump’s team, where data-driven advisers clashed with conspiracy advocates. By labeling the fraud push as neither “honest nor professional” and pegging success at a slim 5-10%, Stepien provided a firsthand account that contradicted Trump’s claims at every turn.

Here’s what Stepien said about his departure from the Trump campaign:

• On election night caution: “My recommendation was to say that votes were still being counted, it’s too early to tell, too early to call the race.”
• On Trump’s reaction: “He disagreed with that… he thought I was wrong, and he told me so, and they were going to go in a different direction.”
• On the odds of success: “We pegged it at 5%, maybe 10%… the situation was very, very, very bleak.”
• On the red mirage: “I was aware of the ‘red mirage’ phenomenon.”
• On Giuliani’s efforts: “I didn’t think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional at that point in time.”
• On stepping away: “That led to me stepping away.”

Bill Stepien, testified before the House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack during a deposition, portions of which were presented at the committee’s public hearing on June 13, 2022.

His testimony provided a critical insider perspective that undermined Trump’s claims of a stolen election, focusing on his efforts to temper Trump’s expectations, his skepticism of fraud allegations, and his eventual withdrawal from the campaign’s post-election strategy. Below is a concise summary of his key points.

Stepien described advising Trump on election night, November 3, 2020, against declaring victory prematurely, as vote counts were incomplete. He said, “My recommendation was to say that votes were still being counted, it’s too early to tell,” but Trump ignored this, announcing victory anyway. Stepien noted Trump “thought I was wrong” and chose a different path.

By November 5, Stepien and other advisers told Trump the campaign’s chances of overturning Joe Biden’s lead were slim—“5%, maybe 10%”—calling the outlook “very, very, very bleak.” This clashed with Trump’s public fraud narrative, as Stepien’s estimate was based on data, not conspiracy.

He explained the “red mirage,” where early Republican leads shifted as mail-in ballots were counted, saying, “I was aware of the ‘red mirage’ phenomenon,” countering Trump’s claims that these shifts indicated fraud.

Stepien highlighted a rift within the campaign, pitting “Team Normal” (himself and data-focused aides) against “Rudy’s Team” (led by Rudy Giuliani), which pushed baseless fraud claims. He found Giuliani’s efforts neither “honest nor professional,” prompting him to step away, stating, “That led to me stepping away.”

In essence, Stepien’s testimony portrayed him as a voice of reason who challenged Trump’s election falsehoods with facts, only to be overruled, ultimately distancing himself as the fraud narrative took over. His account bolstered the committee’s case that Trump knowingly spread misinformation after the election.