To call the second Trump administration thus far a whirlwind would drastically understate the magnitude of the past few months on the federal government’s structure. Chaos has permeated Washington, D.C. as tens of thousands of federal workers rapidly lose their jobs and longstanding federal departments are gutted by executive fiat. Once enduring international relations with American allies have seemingly faltered amidst radical shifts in economic and diplomatic policy from the White House. Judicial mayhem has emerged amidst the administration’s decision to question established norms of not calling for the impeachment of justices who rule unfavorably.
Yet, amidst all of the turmoil, there is one source of relative tranquility: the Democratic Party. Many members of the Democratic Party seem to have not been equipped to respond to a second Trump presidency to the same degree that they responded to his first term, which was once filled with rambunctious protests and relatively more pushback. Despite campaigning as the party intent on preserving democracy and limiting “unchecked power,” the party seems to now be sitting idly by while many followers become enraged over the lack of pushback against the Trump administration’s attempts to unilaterally redefine executive authority.
In February, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries famously remarked in a press conference, “What leverage do we have? … [Republicans] control the House, the Senate and the presidency. It’s their government.” While it is technically true that the Democratic Party has been largely neutered in its ability to exercise oversight over the executive branch, there are still other options that Democrats do not seem to be availing themselves of.
The recent continuing resolution debacle to prevent a government shutdown should have been the perfect (and one of the only) opportunities for Democrats to engage in pushback against the new political reality. Since this continuing resolution is one of the few core bills that the government must pass each year in order to ensure that the government remains afloat, it must pass through both chambers of Congress. However, for a bill of this nature to pass through the Senate, it must reach the 60 vote threshold to invoke cloture to end debate on the bill and ultimately pass it. Since there are only 53 Republicans in the Senate, this bill would have thus required seven Democrats to join Republicans in supporting the bill.
Given that the Republicans would have needed some assistance from the Democrats in invoking cloture, this evidently could have been an excellent opportunity to push for some of their demands to be added into the legislation. Even though Democrats certainly would not receive most of their demands, they still could have used this leverage to marginally achieve some policy outcomes to slow the speed of the Trump administration’s changes.
Nevertheless, a sufficient number of Senate Democrats voted to invoke cloture on the bill despite there being virtually no Democratic input into the legislation. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who ultimately voted with these senators, explained this controversial decision by arguing that if he did not vote to keep the government open by supporting this exact continuing resolution, the Republicans would have indefinitely kept the government closed. This has been a controversial justification and may not be entirely plausible given that government shutdowns tend to be broadly unpopular and impractical to maintain because of how it would severely cut government services that Americans rely on. It would have been plausible for some moderate Republicans in swing districts to eventually come to the negotiating table with Democrats after a period of feeling pressure from their constituents to work out a deal.
The decision by these Senate Democrats to not use this leverage reflects an emerging divide between Democratic politicians and voters. One survey has found that congressional Democrats have now reached a net negative approval rating among their own party’s members for the first time in recent history. This starkly contrasts with the increasingly positive approval rating they earned as Trump’s first term went on. Much of this contrast can be explained by how the Democratic politicians appear paralyzed from not knowing how to respond to a “red wave” in the 2024 elections, with Trump’s unexpected popular vote victory particularly making them question whether there is broad support across the electorate for their agenda.
Some Democrats have seemingly stopped propagating policies they were advocating for and instead have switched to passively engaging with Republicans. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, was once viewed as a progressive warrior by many Democrats and even engaged in debates with ideological arch nemeses like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Recently, however, Newsom has switched his tune, instead starting his own podcast to speak with right wing figures like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon to either find common ground or cede ground altogether. Instead of trying to advocate for the governance approach he had once promoted in California, Newsom has instead moved to appear as a more submissive and malleable politician as he sets his sights on the White House for 2028. In doing this, Newsom is masquerading under the guise of “common ground” to buy time until he can figure out which political current will be most conducive to his future success.
Newsom’s behavior is fitting within a broader context of Democrats this year who do not want to forcefully respond to the new status quo. The Democratic Party thus appears to have taken on the mantra of former Vice President Aaron Burr in the musical Hamilton: “Talk less, smile more – don’t let them know what you’re against or what you’re for.” The party is poised to continue to sit idly by, waiting to see which way the political winds will blow and then devise their ultimate policies accordingly. But this strategy is a precarious one at best. Democrats cannot make a compelling argument to voters in future elections that they will challenge the status quo when the record demonstrates that they are merely dormant and opportunistic when placed in a position to fight.
Image by Darren Halstead from Unsplash
