My colleagues and I have been tracking the creative ways in which vulnerable Republicans up for reelection in November have been distancing themselves from President Trump in recent weeks, as his approval rating craters — due to his war in Iran and rising gas prices, the ongoing affordability crisis generally, his inhumane immigration crackdown, and the role he’s played in ushering in a new Big Tech oligarchy, among other reasons.
This has taken different forms. Only half of the Republican candidates running for office or up for reelection this fall showed up to his Trumped-up party convention in Dallas earlier this month. Others have edited or scrubbed language from their campaign sites to put some daylight between themselves and Trump’s political toxicity. Others have tried to walk a very narrow line between backing the president’s agenda, while distancing themselves from his most unpopular actions this term. This has taken its most colorful, entertaining form in the data center dance some Republicans are performing.
We’ve got a new example of a vulnerable Republican contorting himself to distance himself from Trump this weekend that also converges on a theme that TPM has been focused on during Trump’s second term, as he weaponizes the executive branch for his own political aims. Condemning Trump’s retribution crusade, both against his perceived political enemies and blue states and municipalities as a whole, has been a regular talking point for Democrats the last two years. You don’t really catch Republicans talking about it — or acknowledging it for that matter. And while Rep. Tom Kean (R-NJ) did not directly criticize the retribution campaign the Trump administration has waged against New Jersey, he distanced himself from it during a debate on Sunday night.
Kean, you may recall, was absent from Congress for months earlier this year as his office cryptically attempted to keep his hospitalization due to depression under wraps. He acknowledged his situation bravely and publicly when he returned to Congress after missing more than 100 votes, and was roundly mocked for his honesty by the far-right, rage baiting congresswoman, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and others.
Kean is facing a tough reelection challenge from Democrat Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy helicopter pilot, in a race rating that Cook Political Report recently switched from a “toss up” to “lean Democratic.”
During the debate on Sunday evening, Kean broke with Trump on the Lake America drama, and some key issues, including announcing his opposition to the Trump administration’s plan to open an Immigration and Customs Enforcement immigrant detention center in his district. He also vowed to fight the administration’s blockade on funding for the Gateway rail tunnel project — a $16 billion infrastructure revamp to build a new train rail tunnel beneath the Hudson River and to make repairs to the 100-year-old tunnel that currently connects New Jersey to Manhattan.
In February, the Gateway Development Commission sued the Trump administration for withholding funding for the project, and in June a federal judge permanently blocked the Trump administration from freezing the funding.
But it is all tied to an early-in-Trump-II endeavor by Trump’s Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought to punish New York City — and specifically, the Democrats who represent the city’s constituents. Officially, Vought announced in September 2025 that the Trump administration would withhold “roughly $18 billion” in federal funding from New York City for infrastructure projects, claiming “unconstitutional DEI principles” followed by the construction companies completing the projects. Per a Politico report from October 2025:
The Department of Transportation had written New York to inform the state the two projects were under administrative review to determine whether the state was subsidizing infrastructure contracts with taxpayer money based on discriminatory principles, referring to DOT’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.
However, it was around this time that the government shut down for the first time in Trump’s second term, primarily because Republicans refused to negotiate with Democrats on how to address the unfolding health care crisis spurred by then-expiring Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. It would later become the longest government shutdown in modern history. Trump administration officials quickly found a way to show their cards — revealing that the frozen funds for the project was less about some amorphous use of woke DEI hiring practices and more about punishing Democrats and the people they represent.
“Until USDOT’s quick administrative review is complete, project reimbursements cannot be processed, including a $300 million disbursement for the 2nd Avenue Subway. The remaining federal funding for these projects totals nearly $18 billion,” a Department of Transportation spokesperson told Politico at the time. “Thanks to the Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies shutdown, however, USDOT’s review of New York’s unconstitutional practices will take more time. Without a budget, the Department has been forced to furlough the civil rights staff responsible for conducting this review.”
And so, on Sunday, when he was asked about the funding freeze, Kean did not, of course, get into the Trump administration’s broader retribution assault, but he did try to plow some middle ground in defending the project and breaking with the president.
“I will challenge anybody who gets in my way, including this president,” Kean said.
There may only be one person in the world who thinks that a Democratic majority in Congress could actually roll back all of Trumpism in a matter of months.
“We gotta win this election,” he told the audience at a rally in North Carolina on Sept. 16. “If we don’t, all of those things that we got you . . . they’re all gonna go away. All of the things that we’ve done, the strongest border in the history of our country, it’s all gonna go away. If we lose, you’re going to lose your border, you’re going to lose your tax cuts, you’re going to lose your wealth, and our country is going to go through hell, and we’re going to be a laughingstock all over the world, just as we were two years ago.”
It’s almost like he doesn’t know he has a veto.
Back here in the real world, Democrats will likely flip the House in November, and maybe the Senate too. But if they want to have something to show for it two years from now, they’re going to have to find a way to get around Trump’s veto power.
That will require the kind of aggression — the kind of fight — the current crop of Democratic party leaders has never shown.
Imagine, instead, a Democratic leadership with a to-do list in one hand — starting with a compelling affordability agenda — and a how-to list in the other hand, something like this:
No more cowering from veto threats. Democrats should dare Trump to veto popular legislation and make him own the consequences if he does.
Demand major concessions from Trump in return for passing a new debt limit and a defense spending bill, and shut down the government if necessary.
Drive a wedge between Republican legislators and their increasingly unpopular and irrational leader.
No more protecting “centrist” Democrats from tough votes.
Order the Capitol Police to arrest and jail administration officials if they refuse to honor congressional subpoenas.
Democrats in leadership and on the campaign trail talk a lot about their lofty legislative goals. But some of those goals are unattainable as long as Trump has the veto — and even more so if Republicans keep the Senate. Democrats need to be thinking and talking about what they can practically achieve — and how. And they need to have a battle plan so they can hit the ground running in January.
I raised questions about how they could do that in a Sept. 2 op-ed for MS NOW. As part of my hunt for answers, I turned to some wise left-leaning Washington veterans for their thoughts.
“This is going to be really tricky business,” Norman Ornstein, the longtime congressional analyst, told me.
“It would require a wholesale change in the DNA of House and Senate Democrats,” said Jim Manley, a political strategist who spent more than 20 years working in the Senate, including six years as spokesman for then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Triumphant congressional Democrats “are going to be feeling feisty, they’re going to feel vindicated, and they’re going to feel like fighting like hell,” said Robert Kuttner, who co-founded the Economic Policy Institute and the American Prospect.
“If they aren’t assertive,” Ornstein warned, “they may not hold their majority for very long.”
Each of these experts, with decades of experience between them, all agreed that whether Democrats control one of both chambers, they need to pass lots of popular bills and make it painful for Trump and Republicans to oppose them. If the legislation becomes law, it’s a huge victory. If it’s blocked, the public will know who to blame.
“The old playbook says you’ve got to be concerned about the threat of a veto,” Manley said. “Why go through that exercise if it can’t get through the Senate and/or is going to be subject to the president’s veto? You’ve got to husband your resources.”
“We’ve got to adopt a strategy that you never know until you try. You never know until you apply pressure. You never know until you force a vote.”
But now, he said, “If the president wants to veto it, that’s fine. We’ve got to adopt a strategy that you never know until you try. You never know until you apply pressure. You never know until you force a vote. Trump is incredibly weakened already. He’s going to be even weaker next year. He’s losing juice on Capitol Hill. He’s losing altitude with the American people.”
Democrats are in general agreement about one starting point: an affordability agenda recently outlined by House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. It calls for bringing down the cost of healthcare, groceries, gas and housing. Of those four areas, healthcare is approaching a major crisis, which sets the Democrats up for their first major battle: Restoring the devastating Medicaid cuts in Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that Republicans in 2025 intentionally postponed until after the 2026 midterms.
“Very few people appreciate the fact — except for the authors of the bill that did it — how much healthcare spending is going to be cut, and how many people are going to be hurt in the next year,” said Manley.
As Ornstein explained, “Medicaid money doesn’t go to the 10 million people who are going to lose their health insurance because they impose these new onerous work and reporting requirements. It goes to the providers.”
Hospitals and nursing homes will lose money and some will close, putting even more pressure on those that remain.
“So first,” Ornstein said, “you’re going to hold hearings pointing out why this is happening, and that it was the Big Beautiful Bill that did it. Two, you are going to pass bills that restore funding. And if Trump vetoes them then you’re going to hold a bunch of hearings on why he is undermining health care in America.”
Legislation to restore Medicaid cuts— and to restore the tax credits for the Affordable Care Act that Trump cut last year, throwing three million people off their insurance plans — “those are the kinds of things that are just very, very popular that are going to be hard for Republicans to oppose,” Kuttner said.
“There will be negotiations,” he said. “And the more Republicans [that] Democrats have siding with them, then the more pressure there is on Trump.”
Fissures are sure to keep growing between Trump and Republicans in Congress, Kuttner said. “If the Republicans have a wipeout in both houses — and it’s increasingly looking like that could well happen — and Trump is in his last two years and is a crazier and crazier lame duck, a lot of the loyalty starts dissipating.”
“It’s not like they’ll suddenly recover backbone or principle,” he said. “This is just a simple calculation of self-interest.”
“Will there be ways to try and exploit that and try and get stuff done?” Manley asked. “It’s possible, yes.”
When it comes to demanding that Trump do — or stop doing — something in particular, Democrats don’t have a lot of leverage. But they’ve got some.
“Trump’s got two things that he needs to do next year,” Manley said. “He needs to figure out a way to fund defense spending, and he needs to be a part of an effort to pass a debt limit increase. Beyond that, he doesn’t really need anything legislatively.”
That gives Democrats two big chances to refuse to go along with the president until their demands are met. “They should go to the mat,” Ornstein said, “and that might include government shutdowns, maybe even having extended government shutdowns.”
While Manley cautioned that any leverage Democrats earn after the midterms “only goes so far,” he pointed out that “doesn’t mean they can’t try to use it.” Democratic leadership is also going to have to start getting tougher with the caucus, he said.
Manley pointed out that two conservative Democrats cast the decisive votes on Sept. 1 advancing a Republican legislative package. “I just find that highly objectionable. The leadership’s going to have to figure out a strategy to not have people defect on key votes.”
Manley invoked his own history as a Senate staffer as evidence. “The old Jim — the guy who worked for Harry Reid — always looked out for the caucus as a whole, trying to protect the centrists. I get this. But there’s going to have to be some changes.”
Manley invoked his own history as a Senate staffer as evidence. “The old Jim — the guy who worked for Harry Reid — always looked out for the caucus as a whole, trying to protect the centrists. I get this. But there’s going to have to be some changes.”
Democrats will need to do a better job of resisting lobbyists. “You know, former members — and let’s be honest, there’s going to be former members, former staffers — they’re going to go up to the Hill and they’re going to try and plead with Democrats to cut their clients some slack,” Manley said. “And the leadership and the committee chairs are just simply going to have to say no.”
Oversight will be another important way to put Trump and Republicans on the defensive. Once Democrats have the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas that comes with being in the majority, there will be “so many incredible opportunities for investigation,” Kuttner said.
There will also be one major obstacle: Ever since 2019, shortly after the midterm elections during his first term that gave Democrats a majority in the House, Trump has simply refused to honor congressional subpoenas.
During Trump’s first administration, Democratic House members voted to issue criminal contempt citations to two Cabinet officials — Attorney General Bill Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross — who denied them documents. But it didn’t work: Criminal contempt enforcement is up to the Department of Justice, and with Barr in charge, the department balked.
There is, however, a way Democrats can escalate: They can brush off their “inherent contempt” power, and enforce it themselves.
“How far are you willing to go?” asked Ornstein. “Are you actually going to use your power, set up a little jail in the Capitol, and have the Capitol Police arrest them?”
Ornstein’s answer: Yes. “I’d like to see that. If people are going to defy Congress, hold them accountable, knowing that this Justice Department won’t do so.”
If they win a majority in the Senate, of course, Democrats will also have the ability to confirm or reject Trump appointees, including judges. “You would hope that they would basically say: ‘no more radical lunatic judges, no more rattle radical lunatic Cabinet members or sub-Cabinet members,’” Ornstein said.
Trump could counter by putting those appointees — or even worse choices — in acting roles. But, as Ornstein put it, “You’re not going to have an opportunity to put in lifetime appointments — and you certainly will not have the opportunity with the Supreme Court.”
Finally, there’s impeachment. On the one hand, launching impeachment proceedings in the House is unlikely to result in removal, which requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. But they’re great for focusing the public’s attention.
Ornstein supports the impeachment of some Trump Cabinet members — starting with Hegseth. Republicans are already so terrified of having to take a stand on Hegseth that after renegade Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie introduced articles of impeachment against him on Sept. 16 and demanded a vote, Speaker Mike Johnson chose to call an early recess instead.
“For the vast majority of Americans who have no clue what horrors have been inflicted upon the country by these monstrous people, you’re going to actually be able to shine a light on them,” Ornstein said. “You can shine a light on what Pete Hagseth has done to get us into this disastrous war, to hollow out the military, to undermine American national security.”
And, Ornstein said, “I would also, at minimum, make clear that there’s no statute of limitations for this” and that “we can promise you that [he] will be charged in 2029.”
Next on his list would be Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Collins, which would create yet more heartache for Republicans. “Are you going to side with people undermining food safety, people taking away Alzheimer’s research, and causing measles outbreaks and deaths? Or are you going to do the right thing?” Ornstein said.
If the administration keeps ignoring congressional budget appropriations, Manley said, “then Russell Vought goes to the top of the impeachment list.”
Impeachment hearings also force the media to pay attention. “You’re going to embarrass them and you’re going to highlight the fact that the terrible things happening to people are being caused by the Trump administration,” Ornstein said. “Which, mind you, the press should have been telling them very clearly over the last several years, but they haven’t, and with the hook of the Democrats conducting these hearings, they will.”
Ornstein said the future for a Democratic congressional majority is uncertain. “They’ve made these promises. But they don’t have the power to implement them. They’re on the firing line and people may blame them. And Trump and billionaires will put a lot of money into blaming them for everything bad that happens. And then the question becomes: Are they able to use tough leadership over the power of the purse to bring about some changes? And I don’t know the answer to that.”
Login
