As the Senate rushes to finish business before its summer break, Democrats are pushing back on several fronts. After Senator Cory Booker strongly criticized his fellow Democrats for supporting Trump’s agenda, the Democratic caucus held a closed-door luncheon (regularly scheduled) at which they attempted to agree on a strategy for organizing their resistance to Trump’s agenda through September. See Politico, Democrats’ fight-or-flight dilemma comes to a head in the Senate. (“On Wednesday, Democratic senators used a closed-door lunch to hash out what their strategy should be heading into the fall funding fights . . . . .”)
The results were immediate. Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee invoked a rarely used statute that authorizes five members of the committee to obtain documents from the administration. See Axios, Democrats invoke rare Senate rule to force release of Epstein documents.
Senator Schumer issued remarks identifying the materials requested:
Our request covers all documents, files, evidence, or other materials in possession of the Department of Justice or the FBI related to the case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. This includes records and documents related to Epstein and his clients, while ensuring that the private information of any victims is protected.
The administration must produce the documents by August 15—which it will surely refuse to do, adding to the correct perception that Trump is attempting to cover up his involvement in or knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
Although the “Epstein scandal” is about the pursuit of justice for the victims, not about partisan advantage, the Democrats are smart to push for the release of the files. As noted in the Axios article above, a recent YouGov poll shows that
82% of Americans think the government should release all the documents it has about the case. That includes 91% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans surveyed.
Almost no issue in American politics has achieved such unanimity of views between Democrats and Republicans. Disclosing the information in the files (while protecting the victims) is the right thing to do. Justice is long overdue for the victims. At the same time, Trump’s breach of his promise to release the files is exposing him as one of the privileged elite whom he ran against in his 2024 campaign.
The mere fact that Democrats are taking the lead on an issue that has widespread support among all Americans is a breath of fresh air!
To similar effect is a statement by Senator Elizabeth Warren demanding that Democrats refuse to cooperate with Republicans on any appropriation bills until Trump stops withholding previously appropriated funds. See Talking Points Memo, Warren Demands Dems Refuse to Participate in Budgeting So Long As Trump is Freezing Funds
Senator Warren noted that Trump is illegally withholding funds appropriated by Congress. She also noted that Republicans are supporting after-the-fact changes to spending bills by voting in favor of “rescissions” that repeal specific appropriations in prior bills. As Senator Warren noted, it is silly for Democrats to support any spending bill that can be later undone by Trump with support from Senate Republicans.
Senator Warren said,
I voted no on that funding bill because even if this bill becomes law, I don’t believe Donald Trump has any intention of following that law
Consider his administration’s track record of the past six months on congressional spending laws. First, Trump tried to freeze billions of dollars that American families and businesses count on — money that Congress set aside to support everything from food assistance programs to scientific research.
Multiple federal judges blocked the illegal power grab, saying it blatantly violated the Constitution of the United States. Now, even Republicans are begging the administration to hand out the money for investments that Congress already passed and, by law, that their communities were promised.
Warren also noted that Trump has stated his intention to make an end-run around the rescissions process by submitting rescission requests with only a few days remaining in the Senate’s session. If the Senate doesn’t approve the rescission before the session ends, Trump will take the position that the “non-action” by the Senate is an approval of the rescission, which flips the rescission process on its head!
Under the Impoundment Control Act, the failure of Congress to affirmatively approve a rescission request means that the president must disburse the money appropriated by Congress. See Congressional Research Service, The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: Background and Congressional Consideration of Rescissions. (“Funds withheld under this authority must be released . . . unless Congress has completed action on a bill to rescind the budget authority.”)
Trump is continuously violating the Constitution by withholding funds without seeking rescission authority under the Impoundment Control Act. The remedy should be impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. But because Republicans will not hold Trump accountable for his ongoing violation of the Constitution, Democrats should withhold their consent to spending bills until Trump begins to comply with the Constitution.
Democrats are also applying pressure to Republicans by slow-walking fifty remaining nominations by Trump that are awaiting Senate confirmation. And by “slow-walking,” I mean that Senate Democrats are exercising their oversight authority under Senate rules. In response, Republicans are threatening to modify the cloture rules to allow confirmation of the fifty nominees in a matter of days. See Huffington Post, GOP Threatens To Go Nuclear And Change Senate Rules ― Again.
Of course, neither Republicans nor Democrats modified the cloture rule when Senator Tommy Tuberville prevented confirmation of all military promotions for over a year because he disagreed with the Pentagon’s policy authorizing travel for female personnel seeking reproductive healthcare. But when Democrats assert their right to scrutinize nominees of questionable fitness, Republicans are ready to overthrow rules for cutting off debate.
Per the Politico article cited above, Democrats are (finally!) attempting to get something in return for allowing some of Trump’s nominees to proceed by unanimous consent. Per Politico,
Democrats are seeking a “quid pro quo,” in the words of Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois. The main idea under discussion is getting the White House to release frozen agency funding while still holding up some of Trump’s most controversial picks.
The above developments are positive signs of life (and resistance) among Senate Democrats! They need to maintain the resistance and not capitulate at the last minute (as Schumer and eight other Democrats did in March on the continuing resolution to fund the government)!
Don’t believe Trump’s “tariff deal” lies.
First, Trump has no authority to impose tariffs. Second, when he announces that he has reached a “deal,” he is lying. Two days ago, he announced a “deal” with the EU, proclaiming that it was one of the most significant trade agreements in a generation. On Wednesday, it became clear that Trump and the EU had not reached an agreement. See Euronews, EU and US spin conflicting versions of trade deal, sowing confusion
[T]he White House published a fact sheet about the agreement with multiple claims that mismatched or downright contradicted the version of events presented by the [EU] Commission just hours earlier.
I urge you to read the Euronews report in its entirety. The article reports that the EU disputes most of the major terms touted by Trump, including the applicability of tariffs to pharmaceuticals, the alleged investment of the EU in US industries, and alleged commitments by the EU to purchase energy from the US.
A rebuttal statement by the EU issued on Wednesday makes clear that the EU negotiating body (the European Commission on Trade) has no authority to commit to energy purchases or US investments on behalf of companies operating in EU states. (“While the Commission facilitates contacts between relevant EU buyers and sellers, commercial decisions naturally belong to companies.”)
This dynamic has repeated itself in other alleged trade deals, most notably the alleged trade deal with Japan. See Deccan Chronicle, Japan Disputes Key Claims in US Investment and Trade Deal.
On Wednesday, Trump announced a trade deal with South Korea. Don’t believe it until there is an agreement signed by both countries. Reports on the details of the alleged trade deal come entirely from Trump—claims that are repeated in the political press with little skepticism. See Politico, US and South Korea reach trade agreement.
But buried at the end of the Politico story is this curious statement:
South Korea did not immediately put out a statement of its own.
Indeed, as of Wednesday evening, the official website for the Republic of Korea includes a press release dated July 30, 2025, announcing a trade agreement with Bahrain, but does not include a press release announcing a trade deal with the US, allegedly struck on Wednesday.
The practice of accepting Trump’s social media posts as evidence of a trade deal is journalistic negligence, as evidenced by the significant discrepancies between Trump’s and the EU’s statements regarding the alleged trade agreement reached on Monday of this week. On Wednesday, the NYTimes cited the deal with the EU without mentioning the major discrepancies noted by the EU on Wednesday.
Coda:
Trump has ratcheted up the unlawful nature of the tariffs being imposed without congressional consent by imposing punitive tariffs on Brazil for its prosecution of former President Bolsonaro. See Trump officials intervene to punish foreign judge trying MAGA-friendly politician, and Vox, Trump’s new Brazil tariffs and sanctions, briefly explained.
Whatever arguments Trump might make for imposing tariffs without congressional approval, there is no statutory or constitutional theory that would allow Trump to impose tariffs as punishment for a nation seeking to hold its leaders to account for criminal behavior.
Brown University capitulates to Trump
Sadly, Brown University has capitulated to Trump, promising to pay $50 million to a Rhode Island state workforce development program over the next ten years. See WSJ, Brown University Reaches $50 Million Deal With Trump Administration.
The pretext for the settlement was Brown’s alleged failure to address antisemitism on campus. But as the WSJ article notes, Brown “entered into a voluntary agreement with the Biden administration to resolve concerns around antisemitism, pledging to strengthen policies around discrimination complaints.”
Trump cited the need to combat antisemitism for a settlement that included the following provision:
The agreement prohibits Brown from performing gender-reassignment surgery or prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child “for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex,” according to the terms. The deal also commits the school to provide women-only, men-only and gender-inclusive housing and restrooms.
While antisemitism on Ivy League campuses has been an ongoing problem, attacking the rights of transgender students should not be any part of the remedy. Trump is using antisemitism as an excuse to discriminate against other vulnerable minorities—an outcome that should concern all Americans.
Concluding Thoughts
We are engaged in an asymmetrical battle. One party is working within the rules to defend democracy, while the other is ignoring the rules to undermine democracy. For example,
As noted above, Senate Republicans are considering changing procedural rules to allow for the rubber-stamp confirmation of fifty Trump nominees.
On Wednesday, Texas Republicans revealed a reconfigured map of congressional districts designed to gerrymander their way to five additional seats in the House.
Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said on Wednesday that a Trump plan for educational savings was a “backdoor for privatizing Social Security.” See HuffPost, Scott Bessent Calls New Tax Policy ‘Backdoor For Privatizing Social Security’.
My point in raising the above examples is not to suggest that Democrats should ignore the rule of law in their effort to counter the antidemocratic efforts of the GOP. Instead, we should see the above actions as proof that Democrats should engage in aggressive resistance within the rules.
That is why Democrats are right to demand the release of the Epstein files, to refuse to support any appropriations bills until Trump begins to obey the Constitution, and to slow walk confirmations of unqualified nominees. It is long past time for Democrats to take off the gloves and exercise the maximum amount of lawful resistance to Trump’s unlawful agenda.
For the second day this week, it feels like Democrats are finally getting the message! And that feels good—for a change!
Talk to you tomorrow!
Daily Dose of Perspective
The Fireworks Galaxy is 25 million light years from our own galaxy and is 87,000 light years in diameter.
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed
You must log in or # to comment.