Schumer And Jeffries Prepare Another Blank Check For The Trump Dictatorship

Their latest communique to Republicans suggests they do not intend to fight.

(Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Two weeks ago I wrote that it was (once again) gut check time for Democrats. The annual federal budget will soon lapse, and they will have to decide whether to write Donald Trump another blank check for abusing power, or use their leverage in an attempt to rein him in.

Raise your hand if you had money on the former!

A joint letter from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to their Republican counterparts positions Democrats to ignore Trump’s promiscuous lawbreaking and then fold without securing any concessions.

You can read the whole thing here, but I’ve pasted the critical section below:

The government funding issue must be resolved in a bipartisan way. That is the only viable path forward. At the same time, it is critical we come together to stop the Trump administration’s assault on healthcare in America. Unfortunately, it appears the Republican-controlled Congress lacks a plan to address the mounting healthcare crisis your budget reconciliation bill has set in motion. Hospital closures and staffing reductions are wreaking havoc on everyday Americans, particularly in rural communities. This Fall, millions of people will confront dramatically increased health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

With the September legislative work period soon upon us, it is imperative we receive clarity about the following questions:

1. What is your proposal to fund the government in a bipartisan manner and avoid unnecessary harm to the American people?

2. Are there any plans to address the looming healthcare crisis caused by Republican policies, including the so-called “One Big Beautiful Law”?

3. Has the President or any member of the Trump Administration indicated to either of you that the Office of Management and Budget will submit another rescissions package?

The leaders make no demands. The closest they come is to request a meeting, in the hope of getting answers to these questions. Not to establish conditions for Democratic votes, just to see how uncompromising Republicans intend to be.

This is, if anything, a weaker posture than they adopted in March, before folding and igniting an enormous grassroots backlash. Here’s how you can tell that, as of now, they don’t intend to fight.

POOR HEALTH

You may recall from earlier newsletters the importance of moving first, and with clarity. It’s how then-Speaker John Boehner managed to extort trillions of dollars in federal budget cuts from Democrats during Barack Obama’s first term.

“All it took to establish a new, unwritten rule that Republicans would use governing deadlines to extort Democrats was for then-Speaker John Boehner to walk to the mics and make an arbitrary demand: A dollar in spending cuts for every dollar increase in the borrowing cap. Their Senate counterparts used the filibuster to strengthen the whole party’s hand. And the result was a long, painful process of Democratic surrender.”

That’s the first tell: No clear demands, and no desire for publicity. They didn’t repeat the steps Republicans took to successfully exert power over Obama.

At the same time, they did adopt the method that has blown back on Republicans over and over again: making extraneous demands. Or in this case, raising extraneous issues. Because, again, they make no demands.

Republican health policy is atrocious, but it has very little to do with annual appropriations. Teasing a clash over Trumpcare sets Democrats along the same path to failure Republicans charged down when they shuttered the government to defund Obamacare, and cut Medicare.

I know Democrats want to extend Obamacare’s bonus tax credits before they expire at the end of the year. I have mixed feelings about whether they should insulate Republicans from the backlash that will ensue when premiums increase dramatically. But this hostage-taking approach has never worked. And this gesture in that direction reeks of half-heartedness: They knew they couldn’t lay down without pretending to fight, so worked with strategists to put forth a non-credible threat to take the most palatable hostage. “Raise the salience” of Republican health care cuts, then fold. Maybe that would fool people if better options weren’t available.

THE NEXT SCHUM DROPS

The only redeeming thing about this letter is the third question about rescission. But even that is weak tea. If Schumer and Jeffries are suspicious, as they should be, that Republicans will again renege on a budget deal, they could insist upon closing the rescission loophole for all time. At the very least, they could insist upon a public commitment from John Thune and Mike Johnson not to advance any partisan rescission packages.

In 2021, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took a hostage and released it with nothing but a public commitment from Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema to preserve the filibuster rules.

Schumer and Jeffries have at least kept that narrow option open. But unless grassroots Democrats get wind of their broader approach, and make a fuss, Schumer and Jeffries will continue down the road to surrender. They have all but foreclosed any effort to rein in Trump—to withhold their votes for the germane purposes of checking his lawlessness, and holding him to the terms of his agreements. If they wanted to make the public take notice of their rapidly eroding freedoms, they wouldn’t have proceeded so defensively and evasively.

They might have written: “As you know President Trump is engaged in a wide variety of illegal activity, including his seizure of Congress’s spending and tariff authority, his abuse of other emergency authorities, and his deployment of masked, secret police throughout the country. We of course can not vote to fund the continuation of this lawlessness. Should you need Democratic votes to renew funding for the government, we will insist upon amending the appropriations to include measures defunding these historic abuses of power.”

It could’ve been a fucking tweet. “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”