Are Democrats screwing this up? Lawmakers and activists quarrel over how to fight Trump

By a week into President Donald Trump's second term, political observers were wondering where Democratic lawmakers and voters alike had gone. Instead of a wave of protests — like the 2017 Women's March, attended by 200,000 people — the response to Trump's second inauguration was subdued; instead of vows to fight back, some in the opposition vowed to "work together" with Trump, choosing to confirm his nominees and collaborate on issues like mass deportation.

But after Trump's Office of Management and Budget issued a blanket federal grants suspension and Elon Musk's DOGE team began ferreting its way through federal agencies, outside pressure groups like Indivisible and MoveOn saw both an egregious power-grab and an opportunity to activate the Democratic base. 

"The Trump administration is creating an unprecedented constitutional crisis prompted by actions from the OMB spending freeze to the illegal firing of the inspectors general to Elon Musk having access to people's private information in treasury databases. This calls for an unprecedented response from Democrats not to go along with anything this administration is up to," Mary Small, Indivisible's chief strategy officer, told Salon.

The approach favored by Indivisible and its progressive allies entails a blockade of all of Trump's nominees and legislation, as well as using an impending must-pass government funding resolution as leverage against what they see as an administration gone amok. An obstructionist strategy in Congress combined with other forms of visible opposition, like protests and forceful rebuttals of GOP policies in the media, would represent a clean break from the party's approach in the first days of Trump's term.

Last month, 12 senators and 46 House members from the Democratic Party voted with the GOP to pass the Laken Riley Act, which requires federal authorities to detain immigrants accused — but not necessarily convicted — of a number of crimes. 

Several of Trump's nominees, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, were confirmed with substantial Democratic support, including from blue-state senators like Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Cory Booker, D-N.J. Gillibrand also went so far as to endorse former Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., a staunch backer of Israeli expansionism, as UN ambassador.

While most of the Democratic caucus voted uniformly against Trump's agenda, many members refrained from publicly urging their more accommodating colleagues to take a more oppositional stance. Indeed, in a call with Democratic governors last month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., insisted that the most he could do was unify his caucus against the most controversial Trump nominees.

Outside groups have been urging a different approach. Since Trump took office and sought to throw the opposition off-balance with a "shock and awe" approach to governance, they have escalated a pressure campaign on both Democratic and potential swing GOP senators, primarily by helping constituents organize mass communication and rallies outside of lawmakers' offices in a show of resolve. Sometimes, like in the case of Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., lawmakers' staff agreed to talk to the rallying constituents and promised to take their demands seriously when they refused earlier requests to leave.

"Our members want Democrats to use every bit of leverage at their disposal to fight for us,” Britt Jacovich, a spokesperson for MoveOn, told Salon.

As of Feb. 11, there's been over 300 cases of constituents showing up to lawmakers' offices and demanding face-time with staffers, according to Ezra Levin, Indivisible's co-executive director.

"If every single Democrat in the Senate and House, or even a healthy number of them is quietly pushing their leaders to play hardball, then Schumer and [House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.] are going to respond to that," Levin told Salon.

"What we're telling our folks is, if you want to see them leading an opposition party, and you've got a Democratic senator or a Democratic House member, you need to hold them accountable as well," Levin said. "They need to be pushing for a stronger response within the Democratic caucus and also be out there publicly stating that we need some clear red lines about what they're planning to do with this budget deal."

After a series of drastic, allegedly unconstitutional moves by the White House that some courts have already declared unlawful, Democrats appear to have found some renewed energy. According to Jacovich, over 50,000 people joined a Feb. 2 organization call hosted by Indivisible, MoveOn and the Working Families Party. 

"What we saw over the course of last weekend and headed through this week is the spark that has really caught fire," she said. "We do not feel like we are at the peak of constituent energy yet — that is still continuing to build and grow."

Meanwhile, the tone from congressional Democrats is shifting. Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Chris Murphy, D-Conn., pledged to block all Trump appointees in over the administration's move to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development — Schumer later urged the rest of his caucus to follow suit. They and several dozen other Democratic lawmakers attended a protest organized by MoveOn outside the treasury department building earlier this month, excoriating Trump and Musk for meddling in citizens' private information and usurping congressional prerogatives to make harmful cuts. But when some protesters chanted "SHUT DOWN THE SENATE" as Schumer spoke, many lawmakers shifted uncomfortably rather than join in.

To some groups' frustration, the message has sometimes been muddled by Democratic politicians reluctant to sever themselves from the party's corporate class. 

Days after the Treasury Department protest, Jeffries was mending fences with Silicon Valley donors, many of whom are "pissed, watching former and current colleagues have unlimited, unchecked power, and getting richer off of this and they’re not," according to one attendee of the fundraiser. Shortly afterwards, Jeffries told a reporter that among the "lessons learned from the 2017 tax fight" was that "House Democrats are the common sense caucus ... we could have landed the plane right at 24-25% corporate tax rate like the CEOs asked for."

"I don't think aligning yourselves with corporate CEOs is a great way to build public opposition," Levin said. "They're by definition fewer in number than regular constituents, and we should be building a broad based coalition of not just Kamala Harris voters, not just non-voters, but also Trump voters who feel like they've been betrayed by this administration and this Congress, and aligning yourself with CEOs is no way to do that."

Some House Democrats, including Jeffries, are reportedly unhappy about being pushed into action. According to an Axios report, a meeting of the Steering and Policy Committee — with Jeffries in the room — turned into a grievance-airing session over the outside groups.

"People are pissed," one senior House Democrat told Axios about the calls their offices have been receiving, adding that Jeffries himself was "very frustrated."

"There were a lot of people who were like, 'We've got to stop the groups from doing this.' ... People are concerned that they're saying we're not doing enough, but we're not in the majority," said another.

"I reject and resent the implication that congressional Democrats are simply standing by passively," said Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., one of 46 House Democrats who voted for the final version of the Laken Riley Act.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Meanwhile, centrist groups like Third Way are not so enthused by a blanket opposition strategy. Speaking to Salon, Kate deGruyter, Third Way's senior communications director, said the Trump administration and GOP majority are pursuing "alarming and damaging" policies, but Democrats cannot be expected to "chase every pitch" and should instead "focus on the things Americans are worrying about, like Trump-driven inflation."

"Republicans are in charge. They have the steering wheel, gas pedal and the key. People should focus their ire on them," deGruyter said. "We’re also at a moment where Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are demanding that the party become more moderate. So Democrats should focus on bread and butter issues and ignore activists clamoring to push them further to the left. The path to take back the House and ultimately the White House is to win over the reasonable center and lawmakers must have that front and center as they show voters how Trump’s approach will increase costs and harm their families."

Progressives argue that labels like "moderate" and "left" are poorly defined from a voter's perspective, and that at this moment, the way to address those so-called "bread-and-butter" issues is to forcefully oppose Trump and his efforts to gut the federal bureaucracy at every turn. 

On Feb. 9, Indivisible, MoveOn, the Progressive Change Institute, Americans for Financial Reform and CFPB Union NTEU 335 co-hosted a rally to oppose Trump and Musk's moves to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which shields American consumers from exploitative business and lending practices. 16 of the 17 Democratic lawmakers who spoke at the event committed to opposing a must-pass government funding bill until the "constitutional crisis was over."

The one Democrat who said "he'd have to see the bill," Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., was immediately confronted by chants of "WITHHOLD YOUR VOTE."

The aforementioned bill is a continuing resolution that would fund the government and raise the debt ceiling after the expiration of the current resolution — which passed last December with bipartisan support — and is potentially a key leverage point for Democrats. Groups like Third Way view it as a policy-focused battle, with deGruyer telling Salon that the price for any deal to fund the government "must be high, and it begins by identifying key principles that any deal must meet to protect the interests of hardworking American families and uphold our core values."

Others, like Talking Points Memo founder Josh Marshall, believe that the resolution, more than just a policy battle, must be used to force Trump to end his "spree of criminal and unconstitutional conduct."

"Democrats’ position needs to be this: no discussions, no negotiations until the law breaking stops. After that, if there is an after that, they can negotiate on actual budgetary issues, but not before," wrote Marshall.

"Eventually, there will be a deal with some Democrats to fund the government for the remainder of the year. The price for that deal must be high and it begins by identifying key principles that any deal must meet to protect the interests of hardworking American families and uphold our core values.

Both Schumer and Jeffries have maintained that they do not want to see a government shutdown and might support "sensible" legislation to avoid one, which Marshall posited could mean anything from meekly conceding to holding their cards close to not being so sure about their own plan of action yet. But simply accepting those statements, he continued, would mean trusting Democratic leadership to do the right thing — and that's "not a wise approach."