Sen. Ted Cruz flipped and voted against fast-track trade authority at the last minute, citing (in part) the Wikileaks revelation confirming the existence of immigration provisions in one of the deals (the Trade in Services Act, or TiSA). Cruz wrote:

Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to fast-track.

Good for Cruz. New Yorker editorialists will sneer, but even Obama’s ex-adviser Lawrence Summers has said “[c]oncerns that trade agreements may be a means to circumvent traditional procedures for taking up issues ranging from immigration to financial regulation must be taken seriously.”  Cruz might also be forgiven for delaying his epiphany until the Wikileaks revelation further destroyed trust in pro-trade leaders like Paul Ryan (who had assured Congress that the secret immigration provisions were just an “urban legend.“)

But you have to wonder if Cruz’s change of direction was also aided, not-so-subconsciously, by the realization that has been blowing his previous advantage over GOP primary rivals on the issue of immigration control (in part because of his support for increased legal immigration).  Cruz now has to worry about both Scott Walker and Donald Trump stealing the issue from him. His fast-track flip helps reestablish some immigration control cred.

If Cruz’s switch is actually a cynical, calculated attempt to curry favor with voters … well, that’s a good thing too. Maybe even better than if it was 100% sincere. It means the primary landscape rewards border controllers. …

Backfill: Roll Call blames Trump …

Update: Byron York a) reminds that Cruz actually wrote an op-ed with Ryan in April promoting the fast-track bill he has now voted against (!); b) notes Cruz, like other Republicans, was feeling a “lot of … heat” from the GOP base, and his colleagues think his flip was “obviously motivated by his political concerns;” and c) speculates that “Cruz’s GOP opponents are going to give him hell about his yes-then-no votes on trade,” especially in debates. … If they do give him hell, I’m not so sure it will hurt him. It just gives him a chance to elaborate on his concerns in a way that might help him re-connect with the GOP base. Also, voters often don’t mind flip-floppers, at least if they flop in the voters’ direction. Demonstrates that they know who’s in charge. …