“Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sought to break Democrats out of their unenviable political box on Wednesday, warning that the 60 votes needed to pass the funding bill do not yet exist. He called for a separate one-month extension with identical spending allocations as those currently in force to allow for bipartisan negotiations. “We should vote on that. I hope, I hope our Republican colleagues will join us to avoid a shutdown on Friday,” Schumer said on Wednesday.”
…
“Democrats would also be hoping to put pressure on Johnson and to make him face a backlash for sending his members home.”
“It took an all-out lobbying blitz that involved promises of future spending cuts, a scattering of presidential threats and 11th-hour policy concessions involving tariffs and visas for Afghan refugees. But in a 217-213 vote, the House passed a seven-month funding patch without needing a single Democrat. Republicans planned to immediately leave Washington and hand Senate Democrats a stark dilemma with the threat of a government shutdown looming early Saturday morning.”
“We’ve studied democratic erosion in countries around the world, and our research has found that the most important bulwark against an elected leader undermining democracy doesn’t come from opposition parties or pro-democracy activists. It comes from the ruling party — and particularly the powerful elites in that party — and their efforts to constrain their own leader.
The danger to democracy is particularly acute in political systems led by parties where leaders wield disproportionate influence relative to the political parties that back them — as is now the case in the Republican Party. Our data on all democratically elected leaders around the globe in the 30 years since the end of the Cold War show that where leaders dominate the parties they lead, the chances of democratic backsliding increase, whether it’s through gradual democratic decay or a rapid collapse.
In the United States, we tend to assume that constitutional checks and balances, including the powers vested in Congress or the Supreme Court, play the central role in constraining a rogue executive and any power grab they might attempt. But we’ve found that institutions can do so only if the members of the president’s party inside those institutions are willing to use their authority in the face of executive abuses or overreach.
The reason that often doesn’t happen is because when a political party becomes dominated by the leader as an individual, party figures view their political fates as directly tied to that of the leader, not to the long-term reputation of the party, and so they are unwilling to push back against the leader’s actions. In these “personalist” political parties, the party elite are even willing to go along with a leader’s abuse of power if they see that doing so is advantageous for keeping their jobs.
The impact affects more than just the political class. When prominent party figures tolerate — or indeed even support — a leader’s anti-democratic actions, it fosters public acceptance of those actions among party supporters, as people take important cues from their elected officials. High levels of polarization and the resulting disdain for the other side only make matters worse, as partisans are willing to accept abuses of power if it means keeping the other side out of office. Indeed, even when there remains a high level of public support for democracy, our research shows that societies can slide down a non-democratic path simply because they don’t want the other side to win.”
Republicans in Congress are not acting like a co-equal branch designed to be a check on power grabs from the president. They are acting like a non-person character, or a non-person Congress.
“The review, which is the culmination of a years-long investigation, contains multiple allegations of wrongdoing, including that Gaetz spent tens of thousands paying women, and in at least one instance a 17-year-old, for sex or drugs, and that he’s used illicit drugs like ecstasy and cocaine. Although the Ethics Committee concluded that Gaetz had not violated federal sex trafficking statutes, it found that the lawmaker had broken other state laws.”
“For over a week now, Donald Trump and the Justice Department have been flouting the law meant to shut down TikTok. The legislation was unambiguous and was passed by large, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress; it was affirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court less than two weeks ago. And for the most part, both Republicans and Democrats have sat quietly by as Trump has waved away their previously stated concerns, as well as the constitutional powers and institutional prerogatives of Capitol Hill.
The TikTok ban was supposed to be a critical national security response to the threat posed by the Chinese government and its control over an app with 170 million users in our country. Shortly before the law went into effect, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in a speech on the Senate floor that “without question, TikTok’s lethal algorithm has cost the lives of many American kids.” He announced that there would “be no extensions, no concessions and no compromises for TikTok.””
…
“On his first day in office, Trump declared that he would effectively ignore the law, and so TikTok lives. He appears to have engineered a short-term bailout for TikTok — whose app should have gone dark in the U.S. by now — after a wealthy donor supported the move and amid some belief that TikTok helped him get reelected.”
…
“he has created a precedent — that he can direct his own administration to ignore laws that he believes are politically or personally unhelpful to him — that ought to trouble Republicans and Democrats alike.
To start, there is no real question about the state of the law on paper: Trump is breaking it.”
…
“His executive order was little more than a public declaration that he would ignore the law on the theory that it interfered with his ability “to assess the national security and foreign policy implications.” Not only did he direct the attorney general not to enforce the law for 75 days, he also instructed the Justice Department “to issue a letter” to each TikTok service provider “stating that there has been no violation of the statute and that there is no liability for any conduct” during the 75-day period.
Some Republican China hawks, like Cotton and Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, had taken the position that state attorneys general could enforce the law anyway, but Trump unilaterally decided that they were wrong about that too. His executive order purports to prevent “attempted enforcement by the States or private parties” and to grant the Justice Department “exclusive authority to enforce the law.”
This is generally not how executive orders are supposed to work. They are not supposed to be vehicles for the president to pick and choose which laws passed by Congress he wants to enforce — or which ones he wants to change by fiat.”
“GOP leaders see an opportunity for a new, working-class coalition, which includes more union outreach. It’s a major shift, and fault lines are already forming over President Trump’s pro-labor Cabinet nominee, former Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer.”
…
“Hawley has been quietly circulating draft legislation that would prevent employers from stalling union contract negotiations — keeping the process to months, not years, according to a copy obtained by Axios.”
“Out went Turner (R-Ohio), a brash, prickly defense hawk who had been elevated by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and had become an internal headache for Johnson due to what many saw as his hamfisted handling of a divisive intraparty debate over surveillance powers.
In came Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), a more MAGA-friendly, America First type who, crucially, had better relationships with the House GOP’s hard right — the fractious bloc that Johnson needs to keep happy as he tries to pass Trump’s agenda with a razor-thin majority in the coming months.
In, too, came a new crop of rank-and-file Intel members — each of whom helped Johnson with parochial political problems in the House. He rewarded Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), who helped run his speaker vote whip operation, and found a consolation prize for Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.), who lost out on the Foreign Affairs Committee gavel.
Problems solved. But, also, problems created.
The easygoing, always smiling Johnson is quickly learning that wielding power means making enemies — especially when you bungle the execution.
Johnson entered his private meeting with Turner armed with a host of internal conference reasons for firing him, but the speaker’s decision to briefly cite “concerns from Mar-a-Lago” as a justification for his decision vexed Trump’s inner circle, who said that the president-elect had nothing to do with the matter and accused Johnson of trying to paper over his own political considerations.
Perhaps more importantly, he has made a new enemy in Turner, who declined to comment.”