
Is this the Democrats' Tea Party moment?
is a senior politics reporter at Vox, where he covers the Democratic Party. He joined Vox in 2022 after reporting on national and international politics for the Atlantic's politics, global, and ideas teams, including the role of Latino voters in the 2020 election.
Participants cheer as Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during the 'Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here' rally at Civic Center Park in Denver, Colorado on March 21, 2025. Jason Connolly / AFP via Getty Images
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz summed up the state of his party well recently, 'The Democratic Party is unified — they're unified in being pissed off at the Democrats.'
Just 44 percent of Democrats are satisfied with the job Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is doing. About 54 percent are satisfied with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. And the party's overall favorability is tanking.
That rage isn't going away any time soon. The base looked ready to riot in March after Senate Democrats, led by Schumer, prevented a government shutdown by voting with Republicans to pass a stopgap funding bill. Many in the base saw the showdown as a red line — a wasted opportunity for their congressional representatives to obstruct Republicans and Trump, showing their constituents that they would finally fight back.
The last time a party base was this mad at its leadership, it was 2009, and movement Republicans were furious at party leaders for losing to former President Barack Obama, bailing out Wall Street, and failing to stop the Affordable Care Act. And what started out as base rage grew into a full-on interparty revolution — the Tea Party reorganized the Republican Party on its own terms.
But are Democrats about to face their own Tea Party moment? Is the rage that the base is feeling right now going to lead the party down the same path that Republicans went on during the Obama era?
What the Tea Party rise looked like
While early Tea Party activists and leaders argue that they had a sharply defined set of primarily libertarian, conservative beliefs about the role and size of government, their defining characteristic was anger: at the Obama administration, and the Republican Party's inability to stop Democrats, and at Obama, personally.
Their original unifying theme was an acronym — 'Taxed Enough Already,' a conservative call for less government spending, lower taxation, and strict interpretations of the Constitution. It was a loose network of local activists and groups who showed up to town halls, held protests locally and in DC, and eventually saw upstart individual candidates challenge moderate and establishment Republicans in both safe seats and swing seats.
They saw two discernible spikes in power and momentum: first in the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections, when anti-incumbent dissatisfaction boosted congressional Republicans to win 63 House seats and make gains in the Senate. The second was in the 2014 midterms, when Republicans gained even more seats in the House and won back the Senate. In that time, the Tea Party went from GOP fringe to a rival power center that continually vexed its more establishment leadership. The movement was both ideological — as detailed above — and tactical. Tea Party candidates wanted Republicans to take extreme measures to obstruct Obama's agenda, and they launched primary challenges to a slew of incumbent Republicans who refused to go along.
Notably, the movement was defined by how decentralized it was at its start — though some national organizations later formed to try to organize and wield populist furor, it was mostly a grassroots movement. That energy sustained itself over more than five years and was strong enough to oust one of the Republican Party's top leaders in 2014, when college professor Dave Brat beat GOP Majority Leader Eric Cantor. The race was an upset, and is still largely considered the most emblematic Tea Party victory of the period.
'The populist energy we had back then had a very clear logic to it. It was Madisonian, Adam Smith, decentralization, federalism, taxed enough already, and border security,' Brat told me recently. 'When I ran, I was kind of a pre-Trump in a way, right? I ran on those things, and it's all out there on paper. It was a content-driven race. It wasn't like I was out for power.'
Through it all, there was at least some common thread holding the movement together: populist anger.
How the Tea Party movement mirrors today's Democrats
What makes 2025 feel like 2009 and 2014 is the level of intra-party anger and the unifying of the party around a shorthand slogan: 'Do Something.'
The polling data, for example, does reveal some parallels between 2009, 2014, and today. Self-identified Democrats now view their party about as negatively as Republicans did from 2009 to 2015, the years of the Tea Party's dominance, according to polling analysis by the election data site Split Ticket. As that site's co-founder Lakshya Jain said in a recent post, 'the Democratic approval data is unlike any in recent history — and it isn't a case of bitter, disaffected partisans reacting to a loss in the last election.'
Jain notes that this year is different from the last two times Democrat and Republican bases had to reckon with presidential losses. In 2017, for example, Democrats didn't turn away from their leaders: approval ratings of congressional Democrats rose from 2017 to 2019, as the base approved of their party's resistance to Trump and empowered a blue wave in the midterms. In 2021, meanwhile, the Republican base remained largely favorable toward congressional Republicans after Trump's loss. The numbers suggest this year might be the start of something different from Democrats.
That anger is showing up online, in the press, and in-person in places like deep-blue California, Massachusetts, and Maryland, where pissed-off constituents are squaring off with elected Democrats — venting to their representatives about how frustrated they are by their leadership's weak resistance to Trump and Musk. That mirrors some of the town halls and rallies that defined the populist Tea Party insurgency in 2009 and 2010, and which carried over into the second Obama term.
Angry Democrats have and are continuing to mobilize. Anti-establishment figures like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been speaking to this frustration during rallies in five states this month. The party's establishment stand-in, Senate Minority Leader Schumer, meanwhile was confronted for his decision to stop a shutdown in interviews and eventually canceled a book tour over concern about how Democratic audiences would react.
Other Democratic politicians have begun to turn their ire on fellow Democrats in Congress. Walz, on his own town hall tour, is sharply criticizing the current congressional Democratic strategy of essentially letting Trump and Republicans damage themselves and get more unpopular.
What makes this moment different from the Tea Party
Still, 2025 is a very different moment of rage. Today's Democratic base anger isn't primarily ideological — there's no policy, agenda, candidate, or unifying principle that is rallying Democrats against their party leaders like it did for conservative Republicans. The closest is anger at Schumer, specifically. And while anti-establishment, anti-incumbent feeling does define this discontent, it's mostly around the loose idea of resisting harder, of fighting back against Trump and 'doing something.'
For example, another recent Data for Progress polling reveals two particular kinds of anger. The first is aimed at Schumer specifically for being an ineffective leader for Senate Democrats. An outright majority of Democrats think Senate Democrats to choose a new leader. And two-thirds say they should be led by someone 'who fights harder against Trump and the Republican agenda.'
The second point of anger is age and gerontocracy. Nearly 70 percent of Democrats think the party should 'encourage elderly leaders to retire and pass the torch to the younger generation.' And more than 80 percent think it is 'very' or 'somewhat' important for Democrats to field 'younger candidates that represent a new generation of leadership.'
So while there's no uniformity right now in who the Democrats' lead internal critics are — between Sanders, Walz, AOC, and others, no clear ideological or demographic trait binds them — what does is their call for a kind of generational change. This doesn't necessarily mirror the GOP Tea Party period's start, and if anything, is more reminiscent of the 2018 blue-wave energy — which also didn't necessarily elect a more moderate or progressive Democratic bench.
What 2018 did result in was a much more diverse and female Congress, and a version of that kind of change could replicate itself next year if younger candidates end up trying to challenge older incumbents for not being more vocal and effective in their resistance to Trump.
The generational revolution ahead
At least at the state and local level, this kind of younger energy is emerging. Amanda Litman, the co-founder of the progressive Run for Something candidate recruitment group, told me that since the shutdown quandary, younger people have been the leading kind of prospective candidate looking to run.
'The people who have reached out to me personally about running for Congress, and I hear from in particular young people who know that we work with young people and first-time candidates … it has been people who want to primary older Democratic incumbents. There's people who want to jump into possibly open races, people who want to run against vulnerable Republicans, it is all of the above.'
Litman told me that the Tea Party comparison, while easy to make, might be missing that the party could be in for a generational turnover, as opposed to some kind of ideological or policy change — candidates running with the knowledge that 'the Republican Party of the early 2000s through 2015 is dead' and 'came of age politically since Trump rose to power.'
'You're going to see a totally different type of person running as a Democrat,' Litman said.
'You're going to see people who have made their careers as content creators or influencers running for Congress, non-conventional candidates jumping in, and we're going to see a generational push,' she said. '[It will include] people who've actually run their own Instagram accounts, which is such a small thing, but it's actually indicative of the entire generational shift in power.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
39 minutes ago
- Newsweek
LA Riots: Multiple Police Cars Attacked By Protesters
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Two videos posted to social media showed multiple damaged California Highway Patrol vehicles stationary beneath a bridge in Los Angeles as protestors hurled objects down below, including bikes and street signs. No cops were visible in the videos. There was large-scale rioting in LA over the weekend, violence that stemmed from protests against immigration enforcement in the Californian city. President Donald Trump is deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to quell the violence, against the wishes of the state's Gov. Gavin Newsom and the city's Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. ❌ BREAKING: 🚨 Rioters have destroyed multiple California Highway Patrol vehicles and are now MOVING TOWARD the city. Via @ExxAlerts — {Matt} $XRPatriot (@matttttt187) June 9, 2025 Police cruisers continue to be pelted by large rocks as officers take shelter in the underpass. There is no intervention. California is a failed state. — Cam Higby | America First 🇺🇸 (@camhigby) June 9, 2025 This is a developing article. Updates to follow.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown
This is the showdown the White House has been waiting for. Unrest sparked by federal immigration raids in Los Angeles provided a questionable catalyst for President Donald Trump to stage a demonstration of military force. His deployment of National Guard troops, against the wishes of California's governor and LA's mayor — both Democrats — appears at this point to be mostly for show, intended to create the perception of the administration getting tough. But the reservists' presence at a fraught, politicized moment could worsen tensions and even become a trip wire that prompts more aggressive administration action. Northern Command said Sunday evening that 500 US Marines were now on 'prepared to deploy' status ahead of what would be a stunning and constitutionally dubious escalation if they were to show up in Los Angeles. Weekend protests saw law enforcement officers in riot gear use tear gas and flash bangs to disperse crowds in downtown Los Angeles and the nearby city of Paramount. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said demonstrators threw objects and were violent toward federal agents and deputy sheriffs. Trump is relishing his response. 'Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free,' the president posted on Truth Social on Sunday. He seems to be eyeing political objectives that go beyond the immediate situation in Los Angeles, which, compared with historical precedents, hardly seems to justify a unilateral presidential intervention. He is delivering a warning to Democratic jurisdictions nationwide that oppose his deportation moves. And he's not simply demonstrating his desire to militarize his crackdown on undocumented migrants, which he promised in the 2024 campaign despite legal constraints. He's implying he'll use the military, specifically the National Guard, to act against protest and dissent — a prospect that is troubling in a democratic society. Trump's move on Saturday is also a hint that he's willing to trample tradition and potentially constitutional limits down the line and that he wants to exploit what Republicans see as Democratic weakness on public order. And it buttresses the authoritarian image-making of a strongman commander in chief who ended last week ringside at a UFC fight and who will cap this week with tanks rumbling through the capital, on his birthday, at a parade ostensibly marking the Army's 250th anniversary. Trump gave the order to send 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after several days of protests and unrest following Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that netted dozens of arrests. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Saturday night that the move was necessary because of the failure of California authorities to protect federal immigration officials and their own citizens. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez and Betsy Klein reported that White House officials first decided to rush federal agents and resources to Los Angeles to protect ICE agents and guard one of the federal buildings where protests gathered. On Saturday evening, the decision was taken to send in the guard. Despite the heated rhetoric of administration officials and Republican lawmakers on Sunday, however, there were few signs that disorder is raging out of control or that local authorities cannot cope. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has accused Trump of taking a 'purposefully inflammatory' step, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said National Guard deployments were not 'called for.' And by the standards of outbursts of unrest in the US over the past few decades, the situation in Los Angeles does not appear especially acute. On Sunday, National Guard troops took up positions in three locations in Los Angeles, in what appeared to be the first instance in decades of reservists being deployed by a president without coordination with a governor. CNN crews captured California National Guard troops, operating under the authority of Trump rather than Newsom after the president called them into federal service, pushing back demonstrators outside a detention center. A federal officer was seen firing what appeared to be a gas canister. The stationing of troops at federal facilities is a potentially significant distinction since they were not initially being used in active law enforcement. Such a step would infringe on the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal troops from participating in law enforcement unless specifically authorized by the law or Congress. Even in this case, though, the legal situation is not definitive. The administration has not so far invoked the Insurrection Act, which in some circumstances permits the president to use the military to end an insurrection or rebellion of federal power in a state. An objective analysis of the situation in Los Angeles suggests no such extreme disorder yet. But one top administration official seems to be choosing his language with precision. Domestic policy adviser Stephen Miller posted on X that there were two choices: 'Deport the invaders, or surrender to insurrection.' The echoing of the Insurrection Act by a powerful administration figure who claims an 'invasion' of migrants justifies Trump's use of emergency and all but unlimited executive power is probably not a coincidence. The president doubled down in a Sunday Truth Social post, claiming 'violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking' federal agents. The National Guard deployment clearly risks politicizing the military. But it's a political no-brainer for the White House. Images of troops in combat gear, and the administration's vows to enforce order if local leaders won't, boost Trump's tough-guy image, which is an important factor in his appeal to his supporters. It bolsters Republican claims of fecklessness in liberal-run cities that have been plagued by homelessness and crime. By sending troops in over Newsom's head, Trump escalates his feud with the governor, who is one of the most prominent national Democrats at a time when Trump is threatening to pull federal funding to the state. This may also serve as a warning to other blue states that they could see the militarization of the deportation program if they don't cooperate. Then there's the distraction factor. The theatrics of troop arrivals may help disguise the fact that deportations have yet to reach the levels some supporters likely hoped for. And at a dicey political moment, following his public estrangement from Elon Musk and with doubts hanging over his massive domestic spending bill, escalating an immigration controversy serves to change the subject for Trump. Immigration has long been one of his reliable political havens. Still, a new CBS poll Sunday showed that while a majority approve of Trump's goals on the issue, 56% fault his approach. Top Republicans were quick to back Trump's California moves after days when Washington was consumed by the president's psychodrama with Musk. 'You have a very weak, lawless-leaning governor in Gov. Newsom, who's not enforcing the nation's laws,' Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union.' He went on, 'The president has made it very clear: If the governor or the mayor of the city isn't willing to protect the citizens of his state or the city, then the president will.' Another Republican senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, had few concerns about using National Guard troops. 'You provide massive manpower to prevent violence,' he told Bash. 'It would be nice if Democrat politicians wouldn't keep stirring it up and keep asking people to go out there and protest against lawful law enforcement actions. That's kind of hard to stomach.' Oklahoma's other Republican senator, James Lankford, said on NBC's 'Meet the Press' that Trump was trying to 'de-escalate all the tensions' by sending troops. Democrats, however, lashed out at Trump's move. 'My concern, of course, is that this inflames the situation and that he is hellbent on inflaming the situations,' Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'Individual governors look at their states. They make decisions,' Klobuchar said. 'But in this case, the president, time and time again, has shown this willingness to, one, violate the law, as we've seen across the country in many different situations outside of the immigration context. And two, inflame situations.' Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, warned on 'State of the Union' that 'we have a president who is moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism.' Sanders added: 'This guy wants all of the power. He does not believe in the Constitution. He does not believe in the rule of law … he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants.' Concerns Trump is flexing authoritarian impulses and that the administration would relish confrontations that allow it to move in this direction were underscored by a post on X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He wrote that if violence continued, 'Active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' A threat by the defense secretary to deploy a force whose battle honors include Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima and Fallujah onto American streets does not only offend principles of democratic republican government. It would almost certainly be illegal, unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. At this point, the conditions of that legislation look nowhere near being met. Trump said Sunday he was not yet ready to invoke the act. Still, all this is chilling given his warning last year that he'd be prepared to use the military against 'the enemy from within.' This also comes after four months in which the administration has used questionable presidential power to target institutions from law firms to universities to the media. And it has used contentious national emergencies declared to unlock authorities on trade and immigration. Common Defense, the country's largest grassroots veterans organization, condemned Trump's deployment of the California National Guard. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' said Naveed Shah, the group's political director and a US Army veteran. Hegseth's post underscores one reason why critics regarded him as unsuitable to serve as defense secretary — the fear he'd do anything that Trump told him to, unlike first-term Pentagon chief Mark Esper, who wrote in his book that the president asked whether troops could shoot in the legs demonstrators who gathered at the White House amid the George Floyd protests. Hegseth dodged in his confirmation hearing when repeatedly asked by Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono whether he'd carry out such an order from Trump. And he also hedged when asked by Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin whether he agreed that there were some orders a president may give that were unconstitutional. 'I am not going to get ahead of conversations I would have with the president. However, there are laws and processes inside our Constitution that would be followed,' Hegseth said. Little in Hegseth's tenure so far suggests he'd stand up against any of the president's more extreme ideas. That's one reason why Trump's unilateral deployment of reserve troops to Los Angeles seems like the initial thrust of an expanding administration effort to use the military in a domestic context.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar
California Gov. Gavin Newsom hit back at Trump border czar Tom Homan on Sunday, slamming threats the White House official previously made about arresting him and other Democratic leaders in the state. 'Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with tough guy,' Newsom said in an interview with MSNBC. 'I don't give a damn. But …I care about this community, the hell are they doing. These guys need to grow up, they need to stop and we need to push back.' Those statements come as Trump has made the rare move of sending National Guard troops in to quell immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles without Newsom's approval. During an interview this weekend, Homan suggested that Democratic officials – like Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass – who interfere with ICE raids, could face arrest. 'I'll say that about anybody,' Homan told NBC News. 'You cross that line. It's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement from doing their job.' Federal authorities have already penalized Democratic lawmakers including Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested for allegedly trespassing at a detention facility in New Jersey, though that case has since been dropped. Alina Habba, the interim US attorney for New Jersey, has also charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) with assault for an incident at that same location. And Homan has previously targeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well, suggesting that she could be 'in trouble' for hosting a webinar on immigrants' rights. Newsom made clear that he wouldn't be cowed by Homan's threats. 'That kind of bloviating is exhausting,' he said. 'So, Tom, arrest me. Let's go.'