These were early events in what's shaping up to be a much larger resistance movement. There was a rally at the Treasury yesterday to protest the illegal takeover of payment systems by Elon Musk. Quite a few Democrats in Congress spoke.
But some fossilized old Democrats have fixated on the Democratic response to the dismantling of USAID and concluded that it's very, very bad for the party. Politico's Rachael Bade writes:
After three months of soul-searching about how to revive their party, some Democrats this week believe they have finally found a rallying point following Donald Trump’s presidential victory.These people -- Bade as well as Axelrod and Emanuel -- have absolutely no idea what's happening in America right now. They think this a normal policy battle begun by a normal administration and fought by normal means. They think Democrats have chosen USAID as the centerpiece of their resistance.
Billionaire Elon Musk’s campaign to dismantle the federal bureaucracy piece by piece at Trump’s behest, starting with the U.S. Agency for International Development, lit a fire under many Democratic lawmakers — several of whom rallied Monday outside USAID headquarters.
But relaunching the resistance to defend one of the least popular corners of the federal budget could be a monster miscalculation — and some prominent Democrats told me they have serious strategic reservations about how their party is fighting back.
When I asked veteran strategist David Axelrod whether Democrats were “walking into a trap” on defending foreign aid, he literally finished my sentence.
“My heart is with the people out on the street outside USAID, but my head tells me: ‘Man, Trump will be well satisfied to have this fight,’” he said. “When you talk about cuts, the first thing people say is: Cut foreign aid.”
Rahm Emanuel — the former House leader, Chicago mayor and diplomat — told me much the same: “You don’t fight every fight. You don’t swing at every pitch. And my view is — while I care about the USAID as a former ambassador — that’s not the hill I’m going to die on,” he said.
We're in an all-out war to salvage what's left of America. The war can end one of two ways: with Donald Trump and his henchmen laying waste to our system of government, or with an effective fight on many fronts that pushes the totalitarians back, limits the damage they do, and begins the process of restoring what we had. If Trump's people win, it won't matter whether you chose this battle or that battle or a whole series of battles -- you'll be marked as a traitor. But if the good guys win, what people will remember is that you fought -- wherever and however you fought.
This is the central battle of our times. One way or the other, the first sentence of every prominent political figure's obituary will tell what that person did or didn't do in either the glorious Trump Revolution or the traitorous Trump Rebellion. So, yes, defend USAID. People won't look back on this and think, "Eeeuww, Democrats defended foreign aid!" They'll think: Trump seized absolute across-the-board power, and these Democrats put up a fight. If Trump wins, they'll see that as treason. If he loses, they'll see it as heroism.
Do you get the feeling that Trump might be overreaching a wee bit?
President Donald Trump on Tuesday proposed that the United States take a “long-term ownership position” over Gaza, moving its residents to a “good, fresh, beautiful piece of land” in another country and developing the war-torn territory under U.S. control, offering a vision of mass displacement likely to inflame sentiments in the Arab world.Did even MAGA voters want this? Did anyone want this, apart from a certain member of Trump's family?
Trump’s proposal, which he offered as he welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House, was likely to provoke a furious reaction from many Palestinians as well as their Arab allies in the region, since it suggested permanently removing Gaza’s 2.2 million residents from Palestinian territory and settling them outside of their land. It would also pull the United States even more deeply into the conflict by taking over territory that belongs to Palestinians.
Mere months after he won a large portion of the young male vote, in part by arguing that Democrats were likely to get us into World War III, Trump seems to be calling for U.S. military involvement all over the world. The freshman senator from Arizona is angry:
Trump wants to invade Panama, Greenland and now Gaza. Trump is a warmonger.
— Ruben Gallego (@RubenGallego) February 5, 2025
But look at Gallego's voting record:
Why are so many Democrats -- including some, like Gallego, who joined the protests this week -- continuing to try to meet Trump halfway, or much more than halfway? Look, I understand that if you're from Arizona, a purple border state that went for Trump in 2024, you might want to stay to the right of the average Democrat on immigration. But what are you getting out of voting for Trump's pick to be secretary of veterans affairs? Do you seriously believe that will appease Trump if you criticize him at at other times? Do you think it will make death-before-compromise Republicans in the Senate more willing to work with you? Do you think swing voters will remember this vote six years from now when you're up for reelection (assuming we still have elections)?
Everyone in the Democratic Party needs to see the big picture: that Trump is laying waste to every institution in our political order, that he won't stop when he's consolidated his gains because he's addicted to the process of generating headlines and owning the libs, and that he's not doing this with any understanding of when he might have threatened his own standing with his recklessness. At the end of all this, he'll either preside triumphantly over a diminished pariah nation or he'll be defeated through irregular means -- popular unrest, lawsuits, or something more violent -- not through committee hearings or legislative horse trading. Democrats have to act with the big picture in mind. There's no possibility now that Democrats can win one battle or one lawsuits and restore normality.
Even though this can't be solved in Congress alone, given Republicans' lockstep support for Trump, it's worthwhile for Democrats to send a signal that business can't proceed as usual in Congress. I like Norm Ornstein's recommendations for what Democrats should do to throw sand in the gears of the Senate and send a signal of absolute non-cooperation. Some of these ideas may be familiar to you, but a few were new to me:
1. Insist that the Journal of the Senate be read at the onset of every day’s business, soaking up time otherwise spent on legislating.But even all this won't be close to enough. It's not partisan politics as usual. This is Civil War II, and it will need to fought on many fronts.
2. Deny unanimous consent to every action. The Senate operates by unanimous consent, and getting around it is time-consuming and uncomfortable.
3. Refuse to allow committees to meet when the Senate is doing business on the floor.
4. This is the relevant portion of Senate Rule 26: A committee may not meet (or continue a meeting in progress) on any day (1) after the Senate has been in session for two hours, or (2) after 2:00 p.m. when the Senate is in session. The Senate routinely waives this rule via unanimous consent. Deny it.
5. In Rule 14, there is a requirement that every bill is to be read in full three times before passage. That is routinely waived to include only reading a summary. Require the full reading, especially with omnibus bills.
6. Use the filibuster on every bill and confirmation. Draw a page from the Mitch McConnell playbook; raise the bar to 60 on legislation and use all the delays that can come with filibusters on confirmations. It is a regular misconception that filibusters have been taken away from confirmations. In fact, the cloture barrier has been moved from 60 to a simple majority. But even if these confirmations can pass ultimately, they can be delayed significantly by exploiting the rules.
7. Use the hold to block many if not most confirmations. A hold is simply a senator indicating he or she will deny unanimous consent to move forward on a confirmation, but it has been respected for many decades as a norm blocking action. Holds are no longer anonymous, but that is not a barrier. This something applied more than once by Senate Republicans during the Biden presidency; it was not just Tommy Tuberville and military promotions. Rand Paul, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, among others, used blanket holds to protest Biden policies or just to gum up the works. Kudos to Hawaii’s Brian Schatz for showing how it is done, with today’s blanket hold on State Department nominees over the hostile takeover of AID. It should be done by others for Treasury, Justice, Defense, Education, and other departments.
