The Backchannel

News just broke that President Trump has withdrawn the nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to serve as ambassador to the UN. It’s a good reminder that though we should never take joy from the suffering of others, there are some occasions when it’s okay. Luckily for Stefanik, she has not yet resigned her House seat. But she has given up her position as House GOP conference chair. And you don’t get those back. Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) now has that job. And I assure you she is not going to do Elise a solid and get out of the way. So now it’s time for Stefanik to crank up the campaign machinery again and for her upstate constituents to realize they were her second choice.

A few days ago a friend told me that Chuck Schumer thinks he’s a minority leader but he’s actually an opposition leader. Or rather that’s the position into which history has placed him — and he doesn’t realize it or he doesn’t grasp the difference or he’s simply not able to be the latter thing. There are lots of ways to explain the disconnect or incapacity. But I thought this was a pretty good one.

Last night, in this vein, I suddenly realized there’s a backed-up line of incapacity, a traffic jam of it.

I watched the reaction to President Trump’s latest salvo, an executive order purporting to upend key elements of election administration in the United States. People have to prove citizenship to register to vote, it says. No states can accept votes by mail after Election Day — and much more. The country’s most prestigious news organizations rushed to report these as fait accomplis. The Times announced that, henceforth, Americans would have to provide proof of citizenship to vote. The Post was more or less the same.

I wanted to take a moment to set out some thoughts about the outer bounds of constitutional government in the United States, just where and at what point the American Republic might come apart or temporarily unhinged and how, potentially, to navigate such a situation.

For starters, where does the break point come? It seems clear to me that Trump plans to coerce the states into operating under his direct control by cutting off their flows of federal money from the federal government. We have already seen this with private institutions like Columbia University and other institutions in the form of NIH and other grants. Maine is already a focus because of the verbal confrontation between the state’s Gov. Janet Mills (D) and Trump back in late February.

I don’t want to say I told you so. Because lots of people were saying similar things. But I think I was right when I said that Chuck Schumer didn’t grasp the magnitude or the intensity of the fissure he was opening up in the Democratic Party with his handling of the Musk/Trump continuing resolution. (I said he was like one of those Chernobyl victims who’s already been fatally irradiated but seems fine. Radiation poisoning takes a few days to get you.) They thought it was just the online resistance types acting up and wanting a fight. They didn’t understand the depth of it. I’m pretty certain Schumer didn’t think he’d still be making the rounds of the morning shows going on two weeks later trying to hold on to his job.

In my mind, the real failure wasn’t even so much the one people watched play out a week ago. The real failure was in the preceding six weeks. I still think they should have refused the continuing resolution for all the reasons we discussed at the time. But by that time the Democrats really were in a jam. By laying no groundwork for the coming confrontation, they’d made it a much harder choice. In the internal hand-wringing I picked up in the 24 hours before Schumer’s cave, people were saying, “Yeah, we should be fighting. But it’s basically too late.”

I got an email from TPM Reader DH this morning asking what people in their everyday lives, people who aren’t close to the levers of political power, can do to, for lack of better words, help to save their country. I took a moment to write down a few thoughts and I decided to share it with you not because there’s any particular wisdom in it or because the prose is very polished but just because I’ve gotten the same question a number of times recently.

That’s a good question. I’m not sure I always have in mind who I’m talking to. But I think it may be more “ordinary” people than you might think. What I learned from the last ten years is that one of the most potent things ordinary people do is become part of fairly normie organizing in their communities. In Trump’s first term Indivisible groups down at the town and county level were a big big deal. Not always visible. Not big performative demonstrations. But ground level organizing focused around electoral politics in people’s communities. I think at moments like this that can feel somehow inadequate to the moment. But it’s not. It’s some of the most important stuff. There’s contributing to political activity, whether or it’s campaigns or groups. There’s showing up at things like townhalls. Again those are big deals. And many things we’ll sort of know when we see them.

In the background over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been trying to find out about the purported activities of the U.S. Marshals Service working at the behest of DOGE. When DOGE operatives took over the Foundation for African Development a couple of weeks ago, they reportedly made forced entry with the assistance of the U.S. Marshals. That’s not really what the Marshals do. They are housed within the Justice Department. But their job is to protect the federal judiciary and execute its orders. Special statutes exist that also allow them to enforce certain laws. But there was no court order here. So it didn’t really make sense.

When I poked around, it seemed like people just assumed they were Marshals. Or perhaps they identified themselves as such. But the more questions I asked, the less clear it was who they really were, notwithstanding the press reports that simply stated it as a fact. I put in a press request with the Marshals Service press office to confirm that these were in fact U.S. Marshalls. But I never heard back. Then yesterday there was a similar standoff at the U.S. Institute for Peace which ended with the Marshals again helping DOGE make forcible entry into the disputed premises. Or that’s what the initial reports in the Times said.

The primary drivers in the creation of the federal Constitution — James Madison and Alexander Hamilton — saw the several states more as problems to be solved or perhaps obstacles to be worked around than critical features of the new American national government they hoped to create. But that’s not how things worked out. The United States does in fact have a federal system, which chief justice of the Supreme Court Salmon P. Chase, just after the Civil War in 1869, described as an “indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.” That is a critical, central fact for anyone thinking about how to defy, delay and undo Donald Trump’s lawless effort to remake the American Republic into an autocracy.

In unitary states, lines of authority go from president or prime minister down to local officials. That’s not true in our federal system. The federal law is superior to state law. But governors don’t work for presidents. Nor do any other officials in state governments, whether they’re governors to state attorneys general or county commissioners or mayors. (The very important exception to this rule are the state National Guards, which in certain circumstances can be federalized and put at the command of the president — a key and potentially ominous detail we’ll return to.) What this means is that there are great stores of legitimate political power and authority in the United States which exist independent of the federal government and the power of the president. Inferior to that power, yes. But independent of it still. And that’s critical.

It’s hard to write clearly when you’re being flooded with new information. But here goes. I’ve heard people arguing the “‘yes’ on cloture” argument, essentially saying, “don’t assume you can shut DOGE down, undo the damage. It’s not a silver bullet.” I can only speak for myself, but if anyone is thinking, based on the arguments I’ve made, that blocking cloture is a silver bullet and if Democrats just do this we can shut this whole thing down, I haven’t been clear. I will further say that while the things I’ve written over the last week or so make it pretty clear where I stand on this, I have several times had a hard think with myself: are you sure you’re right about this? I’m not sure I’d say this is a close call. But it’s a hard call, for me at least. Both options hold out possibilities of calamity and destruction I’ve never seriously contemplated before. That is simply where we are. I wish we weren’t here. But we are here.

As I’ve written, my ask would be, right out of the gate, “we’ll give you the keys, we’ll give you your bill, if we write down the DOGE plan for each department and agency. And we just do an up or down vote. If you can pass it through Congress, that’s all we ask.” (I’ve explained previously why I think this is a good idea.)

In the era that I studied when I was still part of the academic world, one recurrent topic was that of “over-mighty subjects.” This was more a reality of the 15th and 16th centuries, just before my period, the eras of the Yorkists and Lancastrians and the Tudors. But the fear hung over the British Isles and thus over their American colonies well into the 17th and 18th centuries. The term referred to subjects of the Crown who were themselves so powerful that they threatened the sovereign power of the Crown itself. They might command more wealth, hold castles and walled cities. They might command retinues that verged on private armies notwithstanding their notional obedience to the King. (The problem resurfaced in the late 18th century in the different, commercialized form of the British East Indian Company, which used its geyser of cash to quite effectively corrupt the House of Commons.) In the U.S. we have no sovereign; or, more specifically, we have no sovereign head of state. But there is a sovereign, the American people. This architectonic fact of the American order is written into every document that undergirds the Republic, from the founding charters to the simplest phrasings that permeate judicial proceedings where prosecutors appear in court representing “the people.”

(Ed. Note: I go into a lot of detail below. The bottom line is Democrats have about 48 hours to convince D senators to clip Elon’s wings. It’s still totally doable. But it has to happen in the next 48 hours.)

We’re now down to the wire with the so-called “continuing resolution” fight. And just to take this out of Congress-speak, this is a temporary spending bill that will keep the government running, such as it is, until Republicans can pass their full budget in the early fall — that’s the one that will slash health care coverage and other safety net spending to give the Elon crowd a massive tax cut. After almost two months of a criminal wilding spree on the republic, interspersed with lots of “cry more!”s and “sucks to be you”s, Republicans now come to Democrats and say: hey, now we need your help to keep going. The bill is essentially a license for Elon to keep the party going right through the fall.

The bill is being billed as a “clean CR” — in other words, just a continuation of the Biden budget. That’s not true. It’s the Biden-era stuff plus new money for a bunch of Trump priorities. What it doesn’t do is lock in the Musk-illegal cuts. What that also means is that it appropriates a bunch of money for stuff Elon has already shut down. So where’s that money go exactly?