Donald Trump Is Losing
Thursday mailbag: Whitmer ... Bukele ... Garcia
If you popped by to ask a question for next week, you can always skip the line.
This mailbag included a lot of questions about constitutional crisis, the showdown in the courts, and the seeming interminability of our predicament. So I wanted to make a few observations up top about our side of the fight—where power is much less concentrated, but where there are more of us than there are of them.
After watching what the Trump administration did to Columbia University (and what Columbia University did to itself) colleges and universities across the country have begun forming mutual defense pacts, announcing in advance that they will fight Donald Trump in solidarity, and at shared expense, rather than capitulate to his demands and beg him for leniency.
Universities already have access to some of the world’s best lawyers, but for those who don’t, former Solicitor General Don Verrilli organized hundreds of law firms, large and small, as amici curiae challenging Trump’s assault on disfavored corporate firms. It remains a stain on the profession that more of the biggest 50 firms in the country didn’t sign on to this brief, but this alliance will ease and perhaps ultimately head off a crisis where only knee-benders can find decent representation. If Trump’s coming after you, or you’re suing Trump, here’s your phonebook.
Trump’s overall approval rating has reached historic lows for a president this early in his term, and his economic approval in free fall.
Trump has fallen underwater on immigration (his last “good” issue) in recent polls, and (if his administration’s increasingly deranged, repugnant lies about Kilmar Abrego Garcia are any indication) it’s because most Americans see his rendition regime for what it is and thinks it’s gross.
I don’t know how the acute constitutional crisis will end, and I don’t know how the story of a despised and incompetent president behaving like a tyrant ends when the people have decided they’ve had enough. But I do know that the future is unwritten, and if you don’t prepare for the unexpected—if all you do is look to the midterms and hope for the best—you’re doing Trump’s work for him.
Now for your questions. And to new readers: Welcome! if you aren’t yet a member, but would like to participate in future mailbags, sign up here, or upgrade your subscription.
drholden3: Gretchen Whitmer at the White House and in the Oval Office. Any thoughts?
I covered this a bit in a recent piece called “How Politicians Get Their Bad Ideas,” so that’s a bit of a tip off. Whitmer tipped off her own feelings about her decisions in this iconic and likely career-ending New York Times photograph.
To be a bit less obtuse: Democratic leaders need to be extremely discerning about how they choose to interact with Donald Trump when invited to the White House. I don’t think they need to abide by a hard-and-fast rule to never dignify Trump with their presence. But most of the time that will be their least-bad option. When in doubt, that’s probably the correct impulse. However, there will be times when snubbing him isn’t practicable. This is particularly true for Democratic congressional leaders, who may need to negotiate with Trump directly (ideally from a position of strength) when it comes time to increase the debt limit or fund the government again. And in those scenarios, vigilance will be key. The only way to navigate them without being used and making a fool of yourself is to remember that people who suck up to Trump in exchange for leniency or favoritism end up humiliated. Don’t make hats-off comments about areas of agreement. If caught in a situation like Whitmer’s, where Trump uses you as cover for an abuse of power, speak up in the moment and say what he’s doing is vile, anti-American. Make journalists report your defiance, rather than your clumsy effort to hide from the cameras.
There’s a long time between now and the next election, but this episode badly damaged liberal faith in her political instincts.
Denis Markell: 1. What do you think is the endgame for bringing Abrego Garcia home? Can they simply lie their way out of this, like Stephen Miller hopes? It seems to be breaking through to the lesser engaged populace, or I could be too optimistic.
2. Very fearful that the pro-Democracy movement will squander the national mood of anger towards Musk and Trump. 50501 is doing a terrible job with the protest scheduled for Saturday - its focus is on Earth Day and Migrants' rights. Both are important, but right now we need to keep attention on the threat to our Democracy and economic inequality, issues that people can wrap their heads around. AOC and Bernie and Tim Walz seem to understand this. Your thoughts?
As to question one: I do think it’s breaking through, and contributing to the erosion of Trump’s immigration approval. I don’t know how the story ends, but I do think there will be finality here one way or another. Either public pressure and the threat of contempt of court will prevail, and they’ll reluctantly bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. (even if just to rush him through some weak process and deport him lawfully); or the issue will return to the Supreme Court again, and the Supreme Court will blink, claiming Trump abided by the 9-0 ruling when he didn’t; or Trump will enter plain defiance of a Supreme Court order—no fig leafs. At that point, he’ll either get impeached and removed or (more likely) the Constitution will become a dead letter and we march.
There may be other scenarios. Nayib Bukele’s regime could charge, try, and convict Abrego Garcia on some trumped up charge, allowing Trump to claim returning Abrego Garcia would interfere with Salvadoran sovereignty. If the Supreme Court makes no further ruling on the question of Trump’s compliance, lower courts could enjoin his whole deportation regime, likely setting up a new clash. But it’s hard to unring this bell of the Supreme Court ruling 9-0 that Trump must facilitate Abrego Garcia’s term, only for Trump to make no effort to do that.
In line with my earlier writing about Democrats involving themselves in foreign affairs, communicating with foreign leaders, I’d encourage them to make a clear statement to Bukele: He’s going to have huge problems with the U.S. government come January 2029, and he should consider that before treating our rule of law like toilet paper.
As to question two: I confess to having an arm’s length relationship with protest organizers. I hear about big protests online and through the grapevine like most people, and I know about Tesla Takedown, but that’s about it. My general feeling about the protests we’ve seen so far is that they’ve avoided the pitfalls you alluded to. In 2017, it was the Women’s March, and the March for Science, and the March for Our Lives, etc. All pegged to issues and causes that might not appeal to the broadest possible pro-democracy or anti-Trump constituency. This time around, it’s about oligarchy vs. democracy—resistance to Trump’s various tyrannies has been a unifying theme in protests against Musk, DOGE cuts, tariffs, renditions, and so on.
But to the extent that things are drifting back toward the 2017 approach, I agree it’s a mistake. I don’t particularly care if someone who hates what Trump is doing also thinks climate change isn’t a pressing emergency. I want him joining the protests, not sitting out because he thinks it’s a crunchy Earth Day thing.
David Muccigrosso: Here’s a terrifying mailbag question: What if Bukele accuses Sen. Van Hollen of some trumped-up charge and arrests him?
David obviously submitted his question before Van Hollen met with the vice president of El Salvador uneventfully, but I wanted to address it anyhow because I think it’s the kind of thing we unfortunately must contemplate as Trump creates crises and decent people respond. On Politix I called back to the 1978 assassination of Rep. Leo Ryan (D-CA) by militants affiliated with the Jonestown cult in Guyana. His then aide, and future congresswoman, Jackie Speier was shot five times in the assault.
Obviously a cult is stateless, while the Bukele dictatorship is not, and it’s probably safe for Americans of stature to do these kinds of fact-finding trips. But we can’t actually bet on it under Trump. Does anyone think that if something happened to a prominent Democrat doing constituent services abroad, hoping to draw attention to Trump’s domestic abuses, that Trump would do anything but suggest he had it coming? Just as members of Congress supposedly had the January 6 riot coming, because they refused to overturn the 2020 election?
I don’t think something like that would necessarily help Trump politically, or chill the opposition—quite the opposite. But it’s in his character, which is part of what makes him so unfit for office.
Bill: This presupposes having free and fair elections and is by no means the most urgent task at hand, but should the Democrats try to strengthen their central party, if nothing else, to manage their Presidential nominating process? The past two have been shit-shows (2020 had too many candidates and far less than perfect winnowing of the field. 2024 - let’s not get started).
I don’t think they should, actually. For one thing (and as your question sort of implies) party actors have shown pretty poor judgment about what kinds of candidates have broad and lasting appeal. Some very prominent Democrats broke with the machine in 2008 to support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, and that was probably the right call. But since then the record’s been very poor.
For another thing, I don’t really think a national party credibly can manage their presidential nominating processes in the year 2025. Once upon a time, they could. But now people with designs on the nominations are free to campaign in all kinds of ways, building support among rank-and-file Democratic voters who would then feel betrayed if the party closed ranks around whoever they viewed to be next in line.
(Imagine AOC running for president in a tightly controlled primary, headlining huge rallies and leading in public preference polling, only for the nomination to go to Josh Shapiro.)
That doesn’t mean the current state of affairs is defensible. It’s actually high-octane nonsense! But I think a wiser reform would be to move closer to a national primary—to add more democracy to the process, rather than tighten central control. A handful of multi-state primaries would be better than the rolling state-by-state system we have now. The goal should be to reduce the path dependencies that can help suboptimal candidates become runaway favorites by winning one early, unrepresentative state. If everyone votes on the same day, voters in New Hampshire or South Carolina won’t get outsize sway. If a large, representative sample votes on the same day, a popular candidate might put the whole primary away early, denying people in other regions a voice. But that nominee will almost certainly be the best candidate in the field, not somebody with a unique appeal to corn farmers.
FWIW, I gave a presentation on this to the Travers Conference last year, if anyone wants to check it out.
Matt Colbert: I have been thinking a lot about what political stunts Democrats could do to create conflict and bring attention to this administration's malfeasance. Booker's filibuster and Van Hollen's trip to El Salvador are both great. What other stunts do you think democrats should try?
So stunts and dilatory tactics are great. That’s why I published Tuesday’s piece about the unused procedural tools available to House Democrats. I’d support groups of House Democrats making use of all of them—and, as I alluded to in the piece, I think it would be wise for them to announce a strategy of massive procedural resistance, so that the public is primed to associate piecemeal interruptions with a larger campaign of protest against the assault on democracy. I’d support daily efforts, House and Senate, to rescind Trump’s tariff authority. Make Republicans object to things the public is clamoring for, and vote for all kinds of things the public hates. Draw up articles of impeachment and trumpet them. Raise the salience of Trump’s war on tourism, as people all around the world cancel plans to visit the U.S.
But what I really want is for Democrats to take more consequential action. Congressional Democrats should be prepared to withhold votes to increase the debt limit. State level Democrats should be willing to take criminal action against federal officers who lawlessly abduct people off the streets. Wisconsin should indict Elon Musk for committing election felonies. Fighting means fighting. But also, the media thrives on conflict, and when Democrats limit themselves to stunts, they make it easy for Trump to change the topic by picking a real fight on his own terms.