Trump is failing. Why aren't Democrats fighting back?
I've always said I want the freedom to vote for whoever I want, even though I have never cast a ballot for a Republican or third-party candidate. It wasn't until I moved to New York, a state with closed primary elections, that I even considered affiliating myself with the Democrats. Now, as someone with limited political power in my city's upcoming mayoral race, I've been rethinking my aversion to aligning myself with the party.
But if the Democrats want me in their party, something must change.
Republicans are failing on a large scale. Where are the Democrats?
The Democratic Party is losing the messaging war. It's losing elections. And it's losing the American public - a recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 57% of Americans view the Democratic Party unfavorably.
It's not like the Republicans are well-liked, either. That same poll found that 52% of Americans have a negative view of the GOP. The economy shrank during the first quarter due to President Donald Trump's trade war. Anything labeled "diversity, equity and inclusion" is being rooted out by the federal government. Transgender people are losing their rights. People are being deported without due process.
It seems like everywhere you turn, there are unconstitutional actions taking place - yet the Democrats aren't fighting back.
Opinion: This liberal influencer calls Democrats 'smug, disinterested.' He's right.
It is no longer sufficient to be the party of people who aren't Trump, and it has not been for quite some time.
The Democrats need to change course now, and there are several instances where they could correct the record. They need to start fighting back against what is objectively one of the worst presidencies in modern politics.
Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act should be easy win for Democrats
Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act - a 1,116-page policy proposal that includes tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy and cuts $1 trillion worth of social safety net programs - is barely getting attention from Democratic leaders.
Party leadership should be on television, on social media and in Washington talking about how this bill would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt while harming people who rely on federal programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Democrats should be stoking divisions in the Republican Party to get moderate Republicans to vote against the bill.
Opinion: Trump's administration is off the rails because it's unqualified to do the job
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, is doing this already, but on a very small scale. On May 29, the senator railed against the megabill in New York City, saying the budget proposal was "big in bad ways."
Why isn't Schumer carrying this message across the country, particularly to states where Trump won? Why isn't he sharing these thoughts on Fox News?
House Republicans are publicly and gleefully trying to rip insurance coverage and Medicaid help from the poorest Americans while also helping the richest. How are Democrats losing to that?
Democrats have a relatability problem
Because younger voters are more likely to align with the Democratic Party, you would think its leaders would do more to engage those voters and reflect this reality within the party.
Instead, Democrats seem to largely operate on seniority. It's why Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, is not running to be the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee after the death of Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Virginia, in May. Ocasio-Cortez ran against Connolly, only to lose the position because it was meant to go to a more senior member. In the end, this only hurts Democrats. Sure, experience is important, but so is energy.
There are several candidates who could replace Connolly on the committee. If Democrats were ready to win, they'd go with Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, an outspoken progressive who knows how to use social media and traditional news outlets to her advantage. If the party were to elevate Crockett to a leadership role, it would show voters like me that they're serious about bringing younger, newer leaders into the fold.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
The Democrats also made an error in going after Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg, a Gen Z activist who wants the party to have competitive primary elections - something that would require sitting legislators to actually go out and talk to their constituents.
Instead of accepting this as a great idea, and one that would give the party a jolt of energy, the DNC has tried to oust Hogg from his position over a procedural error.
It's the kind of move that shows the party isn't serious about committing to younger leaders, even though young people play a huge role in getting Democrats elected.
Spending money to solve simple problems
It appears that the Democrats' biggest issue is messaging. They are supposedly doing something to combat this - but even that is causing controversy.
On May 25, The New York Times reported that the Democratic Party had created a $20 million strategic plan to learn how to speak with American men, a group from whom they lost support in the 2024 presidential election. They were immediately - and rightfully - lambasted for this strategy.
Research is a necessary tool for political campaigns, and I understand the idea behind the $20 million plan. But it also feels like this is something they could achieve by simply doing what the Trump campaign did: Pay attention to what young men like and go from there.
It just seems like the Democratic Party would rather sit around and ask themselves what went wrong instead of changing things ahead of 2026 elections. I want the Democratic Party to be better. I'm just not sure that's what party leaders want.
?Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeno on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Steel industry braced for 50% Trump tariff despite UK-US deal
The steel industry is braced to be impacted by Donald Trump's implementation of a 50% tariff, despite Sir Keir Starmer's landmark deal with the White House. Downing Street would not say on Tuesday whether British steel exporters would be hit with 50% tariffs from the US from Wednesday, despite an agreement to eliminate the charges. Last week US President Mr Trump announced he was doubling tariffs on the imports of steel from 25% to 50%. The UK struck a deal with Washington for import taxes on its steel to be removed weeks ago, but its implementation has not been finalised. The steel industry is working on the understanding that the sector will be impacted by the new rules and the 50% levy will likely affect UK steelmakersfrom Wednesday. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds was due to meet US trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris on Tuesday. Asked whether it was 'embarrassing' that steelmakers could face a worse situation despite the announcement of the deal last month, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'I'm not going to get ahead of announcements for the United States. 'But what you've seen so far is the US and the UK agree a landmark deal across sectors to protect British industries – cars, steel, aluminium – and you've seen the welcoming statements the industries have made in support of the agreement. 'When it comes to implementation of the agreement, that work is ongoing.' Number 10 later insisted that Mr Trump would keep his word on the UK-US deal. Asked if Mr Trump could be trusted, a No 10 spokesman said: 'Yes, absolutely. We have a very close relationship with the US. I think that's reflected in the fact that this deal has been signed, and that it is, as we've said before, the first of its kind.' UK Steel has previously said the tariff announcement is a 'body blow' for the industry. Director general Gareth Stace said: 'The deal that the Prime Minister and President Trump struck just a few short weeks ago is yet to be finalised, so this doubling of tariffs plunges the UK steel industry further into confusion. 'Uncertainty remains as to whether and when our second biggest export market will be open for business or is being firmly shut in our faces.' Meanwhile, a Tata Steel director told the Business and Trade Committee on Tuesday that the UK 'absolutely' needs to go faster in supporting the steel industry in response to US tariffs. Russell Codling, director of markets, business development and commercial services at Tata said: 'It is not just for us making sure that this deal (with the US) is the right deal, it is also about making sure that the trade protection measures are the appropriate ones in the UK, and they are at least as good as other trading partners around the world.' When asked if the UK needs to go faster on the issue, Mr Codling said: 'Absolutely.' The same committee also heard from leaders in other sectors that have been affected by the tariff arrangements, including car manufacturing. An industry figure told the MPs that motoring firms would 'of course' like the 100,000 quota for a 10% tariff on car imports into the US to be higher. Murray Paul, public affairs director at Jaguar Land Rover said: 'Of course we'd prefer for it to be higher. 'But I think if we're honest it's there or thereabouts what the current market volume is of producing from the UK into the US. 'We are expectant that it's administered fairly, that if there's a small amount of pain that that is distributed equally amongst British manufacturers of goods. 'Obviously, we would like it to grow in the future because we think there's a growth opportunity in the US market as the incredible cars that we produce in this country are admired around the world.' A Government spokesperson said: 'Ministers and officials have worked tirelessly to ensure that the UK was the first country to secure a trade deal with the US, helping us deliver on the Plan for Change. 'The Government is engaging intensively with the US to implement the Economic Prosperity Deal that we agreed on May 8 at pace, including on steel and aluminium, and will update on progress in due course.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The senate referee who could decide the fate of Trump's mega-bill
A rarely-talked-about, unelected bureaucrat within the Senate may have the power to tank President Donald Trump 's big beautiful bill. The Senate Parliamentarian, a position held by Elizabeth MacDonough since 2012, is about to weigh in on whether the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act runs afoul of the upper chamber's rules. The parliamentarian is more often than not an afterthought, typically because their role is to be the Senate's hall monitor, essentially making sure mundane processes on the floor are adhered to. However, the parliamentarian is thrust into the spotlight every time senators try to pass a bill through budget reconciliation, a process that allows the Senate to pass items with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster. Since Trump's big beautiful bill is going through reconciliation, MacDonough has the power to veto certain provisions that she feels aren't related to the budget or are solely policy objectives. The appeal of the reconciliation process is obvious. Since Republicans control 53 seats in the Senate, a united GOP can essentially pass the bill without input from a single Democratic senator. The catch is, MacDonough can pick and choose which line items in the bill need to be slashed with red ink. She will be responsible for interpreting whether the Big Beautiful Bill complies with something called the Byrd Rule, which has been around since 1985. The Byrd Rule is named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who was a key figure in instituting the guardrails around reconciliation packages like the one Trump is trying to ram through. The most important facet of the Byrd Rule states that reconciliation bills cannot have provisions in them that don't have an effect on the budget. Put simply, if a provision doesn't meaningfully increase or decrease federal spending, it can be considered extraneous and be tossed out of the bill. The Byrd Rule also prohibits reconciliation bills from overhauling Social Security or increasing the deficit for a fiscal year not included in the bill's purview. The test to see whether a bill complies with the rule has been referred to as the 'Byrd Bath.' MacDonough last used the 'Byrd Bath' to water down President Joe Biden's Build Back Better package in 2022. Specifically, she struck down three separate attempts by the Democrats to provide a pathway to citizenship for eight million immigrants living in the United States illegally. Now, she's in the position to take a major bite out of Trump's agenda, though its not entirely clear what she might take aim at. Many have speculated MacDonough will rule against a provision buried deep within the bill that will upend the US judicial system. Section 70302 of the bill would severely limit the power of federal courts to enforce injunctions or hold government officials in contempt. This comes as federal judges have slapped the second Trump administration with an unprecedented 25 nationwide injunctions in its first 100 days , most of which curtailed the government's ability to deport illegal migrants. During a townhall on Friday, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told a constituent that she believed this provision has no chance of getting through the Senate. 'I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenues, so I just don't see that I don't see that getting into the Senate bills,' Ernst said. The big beautiful bill also contains a section that prohibits Medicaid funds from going to any clinic that provides abortions. Back in 2017, the parliamentarian found that a similar provision in a reconciliation bill violated the Byrd Rule, which could mean she'll strike it down again this time. The current bill's regulations on AI could also be cast aside in the impending Byrd Bath. There is precedent for the Senate simply ignoring the parliamentarian. The declarations of MacDonough and all the other parliamentarians before her have been non-binding and lacking in actual enforcement power. Just two weeks ago, the Senate voted 51-44 to repeal a federal waiver that allowed California to institute an electric vehicle mandate, completely disregarding the parliamentarian's guidance on the issue. Democrats condemned the move by Republicans, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying, 'Republicans, I believe, I am certain, will come to regret the ill-considered step they take tonight.' Going back a bit further, there is also precedent of Senate leaders getting rid of the parliamentarian over disagreements on the Byrd Rule. On May 7, 2001, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., fired the parliamentarian at the time, Robert Dove, because he was getting in the way of President George W. Bush's budget bill. Exactly one month later, with a new parliamentarian in place, Bush was able to sign his first landmark tax cut into law. This scenario appears unlikely to repeat, since Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated that he isn't even willing to overrule the parliamentarian, let alone fire her. 'We're not going there,' Thune told reporters on Monday.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Prisons can't ‘blindly submit' to Trump's ‘whims' by denying gender-affirming care to trans inmates, judge says
A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump 's administration from denying gender-affirming care to transgender inmates, dealing another blow to the president's executive order targeting incarcerated trans people. Ronald Reagan-appointed Judge Royce Lamberth, 81, said Trump's policy isn't based on any 'reasoned' analysis, adding that 'nothing in the thin record' from the government shows that the administration 'consciously took stock of — much less studied — the potentially debilitating effects' of stripping trans people of their healthcare. He also slapped down the government's arguments that courts should allow Trump to dictate how federal agencies are run by letting the 'democratic process' play out after the election. 'Democracy is not as simple as the defendants make it sound,' Lamberth wrote. Just as the president can issue an executive order telling agencies what to do, he must abide by the Administrative Procedure Act that governs how they operate, Lamberth said. 'If democratic self-governance means anything, it means giving effect to all duly enacted laws, including those — like the APA — that were enacted decades ago,' he wrote. 'It does not mean blind submission to the whims of the most recent election-victor.' Tuesday's ruling is the first among several court orders surrounding Trump's approach to trans inmates that blocks prison officials from carrying out his executive order altogether. Trump's order also ordered trans women from women's detention centers. Several lawsuits were filed to reverse the move. Trans women make up only a small fraction of the federal prison population in women's facilities — approximately 16 people, according to the Department of Justice. More than 2,230 trans inmates in federal facilities are detained in facilities that match their sex at birth, according to court filings. In his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order denying 'any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex.' The policy also blocked trans inmates from buying clothing or commissary items that prison officials claimed are inconsistent with a person's sex at birth. Trump's far-reaching executive orders targeting trans people claim that an ideologically driven movement to 'deny the biological reality of sex' has a 'corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system.' Plaintiffs include two trans men and a trans woman who were denied hormone therapy as well as items such as chest binders, cosmetics and underwear. All three plaintiffs were diagnosed with gender dysphoria by Bureau of Prisons physicians, and prescribed hormone therapy, but those treatments were suspended under Trump's policy. The loss of hormone therapy for a trans woman who has been prescribed injections since 2016 caused her to experience 'anxiety, hopelessness, panic attacks, and suicidal ideation,' according to court filings. Trans men who were denied ongoing testosterone treatments said they feared their menstrual cycles would return. Plaintiffs argue Trump's policy violates the Eighth Amendment 's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In his ruling, Lamberth said trans people receiving hormone treatments 'do not seem interested in propagating any particular 'ideology.'' Trans inmates rely on those treatments to 'lessen the personal anguish caused by their gender dysphoria, a benefit on which they have relied for years' under longstanding Bureau of Prisons policy, according to the judge. He wrote that the administration did not provide 'any serious explanation' why the policy should change, and the executive order doesn't make 'any effort whatsoever' to explain how — as the president includes in the order — gender-affirming care damages 'scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, trust in government.' 'This administration's cruelty towards transgender people disregards their rights under the Constitution,' said Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the ACLU 's National Prison Project. 'No person — incarcerated or not, transgender or not — should have their rights to medically necessary care denied,' added Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, managing attorney at the Transgender Law Center.
