‘Why the Democrats Must Start Fighting Back Against Trump and Musk’

While the Trump administration has been busy dismantling the US system of checks and balances at home, and undermining the international rules-based order abroad, many people have been wondering why the official opposition, the Democratic Party, has not been offering more robust resistance.

For weeks a battle has been raging within the party, largely behind the scenes, over how best to handle this moment. Some members want the party to take more forceful action now, given the gravity of the political crisis. Others argue for letting Trump’s decisions play out, and then capitalising on the chaos which his policies are causing, to win back voter support in time for the mid-term elections in 2026.   

Tensions within the party erupted into broad daylight late last week, when the Democratic leader in the Senate, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, broke with most of his party, to vote in favour of a Republican-drafted bill to extend government funding for another six months.

His rationale was that failure to approve the bill would result in a government shutdown, which would cause federal workers even more pain, and allow Trump and his henchmen, like Elon Musk, even more leeway to slash government agencies and operations, possibly for good. He also worried that the Democrats would take the lion’s share of the blame for the disruption in the court of public opinion, since they would be the ones forcing the shutdown.  

UPDATE

‘Tesla Takedown’ Campaign Spreads as Anti-Musk Activists Target Showrooms Across UK

Campaigners are targeting the stock price of Elon Musk’s electric vehicle maker as the backlash against his support for far right movements grows

Josiah Mortimer

His critics, which include most Democrats in the House of Representatives, all bar one of whom voted to block the budget resolution, and influential party bigwigs, like former speaker Nancy Pelosi, believe that Schumer not only destroyed party unity, but also threw away the best tool the Democrats had to resist the administration. This is because the budget bill, unlike most legislative measures, could not be passed by simple majority, but needed 60 votes in the Senate, making it dependent on Democratic votes. They accuse Schumer of folding too easily, and, even worse, without obtaining any concessions in return.  

Many grassroots activists seem to share their anger. Self-identified Democrat voters say they want their party to hold the line even if it leads to gridlock. Amidst the frustration, the Democratic party’s favorability rating has plunged to a record low. According to an opinion poll conducted by CNN in early March, 54% of surveyed adults currently have an unfavorable opinion of the party, up from 48% in early January. Schumer is now facing calls to step down as leader in the Senate, or face a primary challenge when he next runs for election, in 2028.  

The main dilemma for the Democrats appears to be how to push back against the administration, without appearing to defend unpopular policies, which voters rejected in November. Although many Republicans voters are also uneasy about the ruthless, if not to say, lawless, way in which the administration is going about business, most still seem to support Trump’s broad aims to reduce the size of government, cut immigration, and end “woke” policies such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives.  

To help me understand better what is going on inside the party, I recently spoke to former Democratic Member of Congress, Tom Malinowski, who represented  New Jersey for two terms in the House of Representatives, between 2019-2023. Prior to entering politics, Malinowski held prominent positions in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, and before that, was the Advocacy Director for the human rights organization, Human Rights Watch. He is currently Chair of the Hunterdon County Democratic party in New Jersey. He is also on the Board of the US-funded media outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – which provides fact-based news and information to 23 countries where a free press is absent or restricted – and which has also just had its operations suspended by the administration.  

Malinowski said he thought Schumer had made the wrong decision. The party should have forced a shutdown, in order to focus attention on what the Trump administration was doing, and show voters that the Democrats were not just wringing their hands, or complaining on social media, but actually fighting for their principles. Part of Trump’s appeal was that he was seen as a man of action, forceful and decisive. The Democrats had not yet learned to be the same. They should have taken a risk, and blocked the bill.   

By caving so completely, Schumer had given Republicans an easy win, and Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) a virtual free hand to continue dismantling government. A shutdown would certainly have caused federal workers short term pain. But all Schumer had done was buy them a few more weeks pay, before their jobs were possibly cut forever. Federal workers probably  would have supported this. 

‘They Are Delighted to See People Hurting’

Malinowski’s view is borne out by the fact that one of the biggest unions representing federal workers, the American Federation of Government Employees, actively lobbied Democrats to vote against the Republican Bill – writing to Senators that despite the crippling effects of a shutdown on their members, it would still be preferable to giving President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress carte blanche to continue their attacks on the federal civil service.)

Malinowski described most Democrats now as “deeply frustrated”. Schumer was completely missing the gravity of the moment. Traditionally, Democrats did believe it was irresponsible to allow a shutdown. But, these were not normal times. The public would have welcomed radical action to expose the administration’s “lawlessness.”  

Schumer was also guilty of clinging to another traditionally “correct” notion, that it was the job of the party in opposition to position themselves for the next elections, even if that meant not blocking the government now. In normal times, this made sense. But, Malinowski said, America could not afford to wait until the mid-terms. “In two years time, there might not be any institutions left to rebuild. Our allies will not wait two years to see if our country switches back. Our enemies certainly won’t wait to see if Democrats win the mid-terms.” 

He added “America might find itself in a constitutional breakdown in the next few weeks”. 

EXCLUSIVE

Musk’s DOGE Is Inspired by Pro-Kremlin Monarchists and 1930s Technofascism

Musk’s top DOGE operative is linked to a Russian American network of anti-West pro-Kremlin monarchists inspired by the 1930s counter-democracy “Technocracy” movement, of which Musk’s grandfather was a member

Nafeez Ahmed

I asked what was the worst-case scenario. Malinowski said Congress had already effectively given up its power to the executive. The administration was now challenging the judiciary. America’s last hope was the Supreme Court. Ultimately, he believed even Trump would not dare go so far as to defy a Supreme Court ruling against him – but “if he did, the constitution will have broken completely.” At that point “the options are unthinkable. Blue States (ie, ones run by Democrats) could decide to go their own way, and refuse to send their taxes to Washington. It’s far-fetched, but not impossible. We cannot have a system where only one side obeys the rules.”  

In an ideal world, the US would have an official Leader of the Opposition, like in the UK, who could lead more effective resistance to the administration. But, the US had never needed such a position, because no US government had ever abused its powers to such an extent before. Replacing Schumer would also be hard, because no-one in the Senate wanted to be the first to move against him, for fear of failing, and being decapitated themselves.  

I asked why there was not broader opposition outside Congress, for example, by the general public, or business leaders harmed by Trump’s actions.   

Malinowski thought some political and business leaders were holding back from public criticism of the President, in the hope that they would get special treatment, or opt-outs for their own pet causes or interests. But “there is no special play behind the scenes. The idea that they might privately persuade their contacts in the administration to back off from certain actions is naïve. The administration deserves no consideration. It is deliberately destroying institutions built over decades. They are delighted to see people hurting.”  

He was also disappointed that former Presidents like Obama, Clinton and Bush had so far failed to step up – perhaps because they were afraid of being seen as part of the “Establishment” and triggering even more of a populist backlash.   

Meanwhile, the American public were not yet demonstrating more opposition, because they had never faced a moment like this before. The system had always worked well, and held up to previous challenges. They simply had no experience of how to resist.  

The administration’s “rapid fire” of initiatives was also deliberately designed to overwhelm and demoralize opponents.  

Malinowski said it was now incumbent on everyone to step up to meet the moment. Everyone had to stop hesitating. 

“We have to fight back. We have to take every case to court. We all have a duty to identify actions we can take. We must also demand that Congress does its job, for example by holding up funding, not approving nominations, or blocking efforts by Trump to lift sanctions on Russia without Congressional approval”. 

To underscore his point, Malinowski quoted Will Smith from the movie ‘After Earth:  “The Danger is very real. Fear is a Choice.”  

“We need to not get demoralized. We need to project confidence and keep fighting.”