Let’s start with the basics: These far-reaching DOJ demands for voter information are unprecedented. Requests from the Department of Justice might seem like normal oversight, but in reality nothing like this has ever happened before.

What’s worse, these DOJ requests—which we believe will eventually be filed in every state—make elections less secure by introducing new data vulnerabilities into the system and by putting state and local election officials under immense strain.

Subscribe now

As for the President, his only task when it comes to elections is to run in them (which he’s no longer allowed to do after his second term), not run them himself. The Constitution gives states the power to run voting. It should concern all of us when a president tries to change the way elections operate or tilt the process in his own vision.

And let’s be clear, that’s exactly what’s happening. Here’s his plan:

• Stepping back for a moment, this entire ordeal of requesting your voter information to build the first-ever “national voter roll” has its roots in made-up MAGA claims that we have a massive noncitizen voting problem in America. We do not. Our elections are free, fair, and secure. There’s simply no upside that justifies the risk the President is creating.

• Meanwhile, we know this Administration can’t trusted with math, data, or facts. Don’t like the latest government labor statistics? Fire the statistician. The same thing will happen with voter data:

  • First, in the short term, federal agencies may falsely claim that large numbers of non-citizens are registered to vote and then pressure states to purge those names voter rolls—an unreliable process that almost always results in lawfully registered voters losing their right to vote.

  • Later, when there are election results the Administration doesn’t like, false reports of voter rolls “bloated with noncitizens” could be used to justify attempts to contest those results or undermine public confidence in elections.

• Beyond unreliable purges, contesting results, and undermining confidence, DOJ has also verified our concerns that voter data won’t be handled confidentially by confirming it will share that data with other agencies for use in criminal and immigration-related investigations. Given the risks of criminal prosecution or even deportation that come with these investigations, the consequences of unreliable data practices and “false positive” matches become even more dire—especially considering there’s zero benefit for our already safe and secure elections.

This direct attack on our freedom to register and vote is about little more than fear and control. If we live in a democracy, then voters—not politicians—should decide elections.

Trump’s actions are taken straight out of the authoritarian playbook, aimed to take power away from us and put it in his own hands. We need to stay informed, see through his efforts, and be ready to speak up and fight back at the ballot box.

Share

Whatever volunteer, civic engagement, or election protection efforts you or your company, law firm, or philanthropy supported in previous elections were certainly admirable. If you match those same efforts in 2025, 2026, and 2028, your work will unfortunately appear quaint against the new authoritarian threats that voters and our elections now face.

In very short order, each of us will be called on to do more than we’ve ever done before to protect American voters and elections.

A New Type of Coward & New Type of Threat

American elections are a thing to behold. Over 230 years ago, the Framers gave states authority over "the time, place, and manner" of elections, and for 230 years state officials have been the keepers of a voting system that has remained open and transparent to the public and press; secure against attack and manipulation; and—with pressure from activists and advocates—become more equal and equitable over time.

Of course, some have always sought to manipulate our system for their own purposes, whether to horde power, exercise cruelty, or both. We recognize this for what it is: a cowardly, centuries-old strategy to grab and hold power—and often to keep Black and Brown leaders out of power.

Subscribe now

That history of disenfranchisement has long been grounded in excluding voters from the process on the front end: i.e., literacy tests, ID requirements, and blatant harassment and intimidation designed to keep voters from casting ever a ballot.

But voter suppression circa 2025 don’t stop at keeping voters from the ballot box. Instead, today’s election sabotage is dual-impact: it seeks to both disenfranchise voters and undermine the validity of elections even after votes have been cast—whether by nefariously casting doubt on the results, the workers who administered the election, or the integrity of the entire system.

The always-fantastic team at the Brennan Center identified four likely components of the upcoming authoritarian attacks on elections:

• Federal agencies that are currently making unprecedented requests for private voter data could use that data to launch false claims that large numbers of non-U.S. citizens are registered to vote. This can lead to errant voter roll purges and drive down voter confidence.

• The President has prompted agencies to investigate and even decertify previously approved voting equipment. This could be a precursor for government reports containing false or misleading claims about the security and accuracy of election systems.

• Executive Orders and other statements suggest we’ll see an increase in politicized investigations and prosecutions of election workers and other individuals who work to assist voters.

• Based on recent military deployments and other actions, we could even see scenarios where federal agencies could be used to interfere in election operations, including through efforts to prevent legal votes from being counted.

Again, each attack is a twin threat against democracy: it seeks to both disenfranchise voters or intimidate them from voting, and simultaneously lay the groundwork to subvert perfectly valid election results after the fact. This is the new threat we face.

A New Theory of Election Protection

For years, lawyers, advocates, and political parties have led election protection efforts. This made sense. Courts and legislatures were the obvious places to fight for a level playing field, political candidates were obvious leaders in that fight, and nonprofit advocates could help amplify voting rights messages to their members.

Protecting our votes from an autocrat determined to deploy new tactics to meddle in elections to grab and hold power for himself and his party will, however, take more than just lawyers volunteering to monitor polling places on Election Day and celebrities posting links to voter registration websites.

Don't get me wrong: we'll need every lawyer and celebrity we can get.

But safeguarding elections and voters from an authoritarian who is already laying the groundwork to subvert elections will require more from each more of us than ever before contributing more than ever before starting sooner than ever before.

• New Timelines: This is not a Summer or Fall of 2026 problem, it’s a today problem. The authoritarians are organizing now, and we’re already behind. There are major elections in just 50 days in California, New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Detroit, Atlanta, and elsewhere. Authoritarians will use what happens in 2025 as a basis to tilt the playing field in 2026. The midterms in 2026 will feel like a Presidential year in terms of intensity, because the authoritarians will use whatever happens that year to further hamper free and fair elections in 2028. We must organize and activate starting today.

• New Tactics: Activation and volunteerism must be robust before, during, and after Election Day—all the way until the last vote is certified and the final court case challenging the results is settled. We need people pre-butting and debunking election disinformation in the streets and on social media and on podcasts and (most importantly of all) with friends and neighbors and coworkers and fellow churchgoers. We need businesses to be brave and amplify pro-voter messaging to employees. We need philanthropy to be more generous than ever before.

• New Coalitions: We’re going to need to do all this numbers that make previous national activation weekends like No Kings look small. Lawyers and non-lawyers. Students and retirees. We need the business community and the creator community and the faith community to show up en masse, both in person and online. And we need each and every person that I just listed to recruit three friends to volunteer or march or post with them. Case studies from other countries teach us that the most effective way to stop authoritarian election manipulation is people standing up in huge numbers and saying, “no!”.

Essential voting rights and election protection litigation is still essential. The leading pro-democracy nonprofit organizations will still lead. They need your support and your funding and your amplification, just like you’ve done for them in the past. But they, and we, and America need you to do more.

Now, or never.

Share

Not on the list: elections.

It’s so rare for anyone to lobby for free and fair elections that regulators didn’t even list elections in the top 129 categories alongside fisheries and the gold standard.

American companies spent a record $4.53 billion lobbying in 2024. While we can’t know how much was spent on election policy, it’s safe to say there’s room to grow.

Subscribe now

There’s little question businesses should put dollars behind free and fair elections. Democratic countries have a higher GDP per capita than non-democracies. Over 96% of executives agree that a well-functioning democracy is needed for a strong economy, and 71% of CEOs are “very concerned” that geopolitical instability would harm sales.

Evidence also shows that stakeholders reward organizations that lead with their values: 81% of consumers are more likely to buy a company’s products if it speaks out against restrictive voting laws, and 76% are more likely to work for a company that promotes democracy.

We also know how to tell companies to spend election-related lobbying dollars effectively. For example:

• A survey of local election officials by the Brennan Center says 75% of election officials need more funding to meet demands around security, machines, and polls workers. Congress, however, just proposed a paltry $15 million in election funding. Companies lobby more over appropriations than any other issue, so it should be easy for them to lobby around election spending.

• Protecting elections from foreign influence is something we all agree on. However, the agency that does this—the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA—has seen drastic cuts, and election officials are worried. DHS Noem says that, despite the cuts, CISA will provide some cybersecurity resources. Maybe a few of the 659 companies that lobby on technology, the 487 that lobby on homeland security, or the 398 that lobby on telecommunications can lobby Noem to stick to her position around providing basic election-related cybersecurity services?

Others have pointed out obstacles to this plan: C-suites aren’t versed in election administration, and corporations are good at advocating for their own business interests but “less well equipped to act on shared social concerns.”

Subscribe now

Given what’s on the line, these obstacles are worth overcoming. Organizations like Leadership Now Project are educating and organizing business leaders. Private executive briefings and bespoke advocacy strategies are also available.

So let’s get to it. If you’re an employee, look up your company’s lobbying budget and email leadership saying you want some of it spent on elections. If you’re in leadership, get educated. If you need resources, I’ve got them.

There’s very, very little time to waste.

I love the graphic below from the team at Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE), which depicts a well-functioning democracy as one with fair elections & processes, responsive policymaking, free-flowing information, and social cohesion—all resulting in an empowered citizenry.

Democracy Doesn’t Deliver Voters — So Far

Democrats have had a tough time messaging around threats to “democracy.”

A centerpiece of President Biden’s 2024 campaign was that the election was “a battle for the soul of the nation.” In a major speech, Biden argued Trump was a threat to democracy. While he nodded to topics like the “freedom to speak your mind” and “opening the doors of opportunity wider,” he mostly linked “democracy” to voting rights and Trump’s 2020 attempt to overthrow the election. He used the word “election” 22 times, “insurrection” 12 times, “vote” 9 times, and “Trump” 50 times.

Ultimately, this message failed to resonate.

When asked if they trusted Kamala Harris or Donald Trump more to handle threats to democracy, one poll of 1,600 people who voted in 2024 found that 50% trusted Trump more to preserve democracy, compared to 49% for Harris.

Subscribe now

Canceling Colbert Wakes Hollywood from Hibernation

Last week, CBS canceled one of only three late-night shows to earn an Emmy Award nomination this year.

Here’s a timeline of events, and a depiction of democracy in decline:

• July 2: Paramount Global (CBS’s owner ) reaches a widely-criticized agreement to pay Trump $16 million to settle his frivolous lawsuit against CBS.

• July 7: CBS and Skydance Media ink a merger agreement worth $8 billion—subject to approval by the Trump Administration.

• July 14: On his show, Colbert criticizes Paramount Global’s $16m payout to Trump, calling it a “big fat bribe.”

• July 15: Skydance’s CEO and his top lawyer meet with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr to lobby for approval of the merger. (Note: Carr wrote Project 2025’s chapter on the FCC and recently revived an investigation into CBS that the previous FCC Chair dismissed.)

• July 17: Paramount Global fires Colbert.

Here we see several direct hits to PACE’s democracy wheel totally separate from voting or elections: the corruption of governing institutions; advocacy and policy that are responsive only to those with access and means; and the silencing of critical media voices resulting in a less informed and disempowered citizenry.

Interestingly, the attack on these aspects of democracy is resonating.

As one report puts, it, “A-list stars are taking to social media to speak out against the late night show's abrupt cancellation.” While most celebrities, athletes, and influencers have had little to say in response to Trump’s many recent attacks on free & fair elections, Katie Couric, Ben Stiller, Rachel Zegler, Judd Apatow, Adam Scott, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, and others have spoken out against Colbert’s corrupt firing.

Subscribe now

A Potential Playbook

It’s easy to conclude that entertainers are invested in the Colbert incident because it involves an entertainer—certainly that’s part of it.

But I think we can draw larger lessons in how to shape a pro-democracy strategy that resonates with voters:

• First, when speaking or organizing rallies around “democracy,” progressives should focus on threats to values other than free and fair elections (at least for now). Many election regulations such as voter ID requirements are actually popular with voters, which makes them tricky to message. Meanwhile, everyone loves freedom of speech and hates censorship and corruption. The graphic above depicts almost two dozen non-voting-related democratic values under threat that we can educate and rally voters around.

• Second, it’s better to focus on tangible acts like canceling late night shows than abstract concepts like “institutions” or “the rule of law.” We should identify something specific the Administration has done, explain in the everyday terms, link it to a shared democratic values, and repeat repeat repeat. “Trump weakens all of us when he pressures private companies to do things like fire talk show hosts as a favor to him. This type of corruption threatens our access to information and reeks of un-American censorship.”

There’s little doubt major attacks against our elections and the right to vote are coming. When they do, their severity and impact on democracy will be clear enough and tangible enough that we can and should rally voters in response.

My worry is that if we wait until that moment to explain to voters the many ways their democracy is already being undermined, it may be too late to save it.

The Supreme Court is out with another ruling making it harder for you to protect your rights. Meanwhile, lawyers and the media are missing an opportunity to help voters realize how important this moment is by explaining it with mind-numbing legalese like “universal injunctions” and “placing limits on how parties can seek judicial relief going forward.”

The Supreme Court’s Ruling, Explained

Let’s say the President issues an Executive Order that every voter in the country has to show proof of citizenship (like a passport or birth certificate) before they can vote. The policy applies to you, me, and everyone else in the country.

Now let’s say a few voters in DC or some other place file a lawsuit in their local federal court arguing the “proof of citizenship” rule is unconstitutional.

If the judge agrees that the rule is unfair for the DC voters who filed the lawsuit, then it’s common sense that the law is equally unfair for you and for me. It’s the same proof of citizenship law that applies to every voter in the country—whether or not we’re the ones who went to court to sue over it.

Until today’s ruling, the federal court judge in DC had the ability to project not just the DC voters who filed the case from the unconstitutional Executive Order, but also you, me, and every other voter in America.

Specifically, the judge could enter a “universal injunction” or “nationwide injunction.” This “injunction” is basically a court order meaning that when a policy or law that impacts everyone is unconstitutional in the place where one person filed a lawsuit, it’s unconstitutional everywhere else, too.

This is just common sense. It prevents a patchwork of different laws being in place across the country, and it prevents 340 million different people from having to all file lawsuits to protect their rights.

Subscribe now

What the Future may Hold

This ruling makes it easier for those in charge to harm those with less authority.

This ruling makes it easier for the Executive Branch to grab ever-more power for itself.

This ruling further erodes our checks and balances, and makes it harder for the Judicial Branch to stall the Executive when it seeks to grab that power.

This ruling makes it harder for you to protect your rights (though some pathways still remain open for savvy litigants and capable lawyers).

This marks a huge shift in the balance of power in our government… toward the Executive Branch, away from the Judiciary, and away from the People.

According to the president, these event expenses amount to “MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.”

Where to even begin…

Campaign Finance Law in Two Minutes

Here’s what we need to know:

• The maximum someone could contribute to Harris was $6,600. I know it seems like there’s unlimited money in politics, but rules still exist.

• “Contributions” include not just cash, but also “in-kind” contributions. Think of this as bills that you’d pay on the campaign’s behalf, like office equipment, pizza, or… concert expenses.

• You can’t throw a concert for the campaign that costs more than the limit (or write a check for more than the limit). That would be an illegal contribution to the campaign.

• Accordingly, when an artist racks up costs to put on an event to endorse a candidate, the candidate has to pay the event costs to avoid receiving an illegal contribution.

• Meanwhile, there’s actually no rule against candidates paying someone to gain their endorsement, however:

• Candidates are required to file public reports detailing every dollar they spend, including who they paid it to and the purpose of the payment. Failing to report a payment is a violation, and reporting a payment but lying about its purpose is a violation. Candidates can face severe penalties for filing false reports. If Harris paid Beyonce for her endorsement, we’d know.

Like every area of law, there are exceptions and perfectly acceptable work-arounds to some of these rules, but those are the basics.1

Subscribe now

In short: it looks like the Harris campaign did everything right, and everything Trump knows about campaign finance law is wrong. He cites Harris’s payments to Oprah and others, alleging those payments are illegal contributions. In fact, those payments were necessary and proper to cover event expenses and avoid illegal contributions, and the only reason Trump knows about them is because Harris properly reported them.

Calling All “Major Investigators”

I’m curious who Trump will find to lead his “major investigation.” As I posted a few weeks ago, the Federal Election Commission that enforces these campaign finance laws is de facto defunct.

Trump also gutted the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice, which leads criminal investigations into candidates.

Maybe he’ll pull from his new bank of law firm pro bono hours.

Calling Lee Greenwood

Of course, Trump had celebrity endorsers, too. Kid Rock performed at the Republican National Convention. So did Lee Greenwood.

Mr. Greenwood, for his part, Tweeted that he’s “received $0 from the Trump Campaign or the Trump Organization to perform/appear at Trump Rallies or Events.”

In other words, Greenwood suggests Trump never paid him for any expenses he incurred to perform at Trump events (such as travel, paying band members, or renting equipment).

If true, it sure would be nice if there was a functional FEC or DOJ to investigate whether those expenses exceed the allowable limits…

Share A Critical Mass of Voters

Resistance yields results.

Every lawsuit, every protest sign, every call to your legislator at every level of government.

They all add up to playing a role in victories like the one we have in North Carolina, where this morning Jefferson Griffin has finally conceded last November’s state supreme court election to rightful victor Allison Riggs.

Subscribe now

By now you’re familiar with the facts: Riggs won the election by around 600 votes, but Griffen tried to retroactively change the laws after the votes have been cast to cancel over 65,000 votes and steal the election. For months, he refused to concede while his desperate, election-denying challenges ping-ponged through the courts.

This week, a Trump-appointed federal judge dealt Griffin a near-definitive loss, and Griffin finally conceded!

For legal nerds in the audience, the language of Judge Myers’ ruling was notable:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the 1. Retroactive invalidation of absentee ballots cast by overseas military and civilian voters violates those voters’ substantive due process rights; 2. The cure process violates the equal protection rights of overseas military and civilian voters; and 3. The lack of any notice or opportunity for eligible voters to contest their mistaken designation as Never Residents violates procedural due process and represents an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote

Plainly stated: the law doesn’t allow candidates to change the rules after the game has been played in order to deny the results of the election.

In my view, Trump’s weakened position made it easier for Myers to issue this ruling. Pro-democracy groups have filed over 200 lawsuits against Trump’s power grabs since he took office. One statistic I heard last week said that around 130 of them have already been successful in halting his executive orders, illegal firings, and other moves. Add to that his historically weak poll numbers and massive public protests every few weeks and you have an environment where it’s much easier for judges he appointed to hold him accountable than if no one was standing up to him.

Resistance matters.

But what if no one is enforcing those rules? Or what if they’re being enforced unevenly?

Subscribe now

Money in campaigns is, unfortunately, almost everything. If one candidate has limits on how many staff they can hire, offices she can open, or ads he can buy — but the other doesn’t — the advantages are hard to overcome.

The video linked here explains how this is the reality that’s starting to come into focus heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

Here’s the background:

Last month, Trump issued an Executive Order claiming to “Preserve and Protect the Integrity of American Elections.” The truth? The order tries to do something that’s never been done before: give the President of the United States broad authority over how American elections are run.

Subscribe now

Today, a court told Trump to halt a major anti-voter portion of the Executive Order from taking effect.

My video explainer linked here breaks down the basics of the case and explains how this Executive Order fits with Trump’s pattern of attempting to grab power and then eliminate checks on that power during his first 100 days.

What’s Happening in North Carolina?

For five months, state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin has led a campaign to throw out over 65,000 lawful ballots from the 2024 election.

Incumbent Justice Allison Riggs won her race against Griffin by around 600 votes, which is a close result. Close elections are a normal part of politics, and when that happens candidates are entitled to a recount. In North Carolina, Riggs’ win was confirmed by multiple recounts.

What isn’t normal is Griffin’s refusal to concede and the types of claims he’s bringing months after Election Day. Griffen is trying to retroactively change the laws after the votes have been cast: He’s targeting voters who followed the rules and voted legally, but says the rules should have been different and therefore the votes shouldn’t count.

Both the bipartisan State Board of Elections and the lower court rejected Griffin’s challenge to the 65,000 ballots. So he appealed to the Republican-controlled Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision on Friday, the Court of Appeals sided with Griffin. The decision is deeply misinformed, and Riggs is appealing to the State Supreme Court (where she’ll be recused from the case).

Subscribe now

What Could NC Mean for the Rest of the Country?

Griffin’s attempt to rewrite the rules after the election is unprecedented, offensive, and sets a dangerous blueprint for how future losing candidates can subvert the will of the voters.

If successful, misguided decisions like the NC Court of Appeals opinion could be copied around the country to change the voting rules after the election has taken place. A losing candidate could identify categories of voters (e.g., overseas absentee voters, or voters who used student IDs to check in at the polling place) and file challenges after the election is over saying, “I don’t care if the rules said those voting methods were allowed; the rules were wrong and those voters should be canceled out.”

This risks undermining faith democracy, and would amount to a massive transfer of power from the people to politicians and the courts. In a democracy, people choose the leaders. Judges and politicians shouldn’t be able to overrule the will of the people.

Subscribe now

What Happens Next?

The North Carolina ordeal will wind its way through the courts throughout the summer. Even after the North Carolina Supreme Court renders a decision, the federal courts could intervene. Election deniers nationwide will be watching all this for new plays to add to their election subversion playbook for 2026 and beyond. The entire time, North Carolinians who voted legally will have their faith in the process tested while they’re stuck wondering if their votes will count.

Most importantly, legal volunteers on the ground in North Carolina will be reaching out to those voters talking them through steps they can take to make sure their vote will count despite Griffin’s challenge.

If you know any North Carolina voters, tell them to check for their name on this website to see if Jefferson Griffin is trying to cancel their right to vote. If they find their name, they should contact their County Board of Elections for instructions on how to make sure their vote counts.

Subscribe now

Let’s put this in context and maybe even move people to the lawyers’ side for a change.

Subscribe now

First, don’t let them reframe the basic argument

Trump wants you to think that because he won the election, he gets to do everything he wants and that any judge who tries to stop him should be impeached.

That’s never how America has worked. We have a constitution and a set of laws that limit how the government can behave. These laws are for our protection as citizens against the more powerful government.

If the government goes beyond those laws—if it tramples on our voting rights, deports our neighbors just because they have “scary looking” tattoos, or terminates workers in violation of employment laws—we have the right challenge those actions.

To file challenges we need two things: (1) impartial judges who can’t be impeached, and (2) lawyers willing to take the cases.

Second, let’s review Trump’s latest attacks on lawyers

It’s been a difficult stretch for those who care about using the law to protect against government overreach. Trump has issued executive orders punishing reputable law firms just for having clients like Hillary Clinton and Jack Smith. Two firms are fighting back, but one tragically caved and made an embarrassing deal to save itself.

That third firm’s surrender emboldened Trump. Within hours, he dramatically expanded his attacks on lawyers in a midnight memo that named a third law firm2 but applied broadly to any lawyer in any case against the government.

Trump’s memo orders the Attorney General to review cases back to the first Trump Administration to identify any “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious” cases or any “ethical misconduct” by attorneys in the cases. The AG can then seek to impose fines or take “other appropriate actions” against the lawyers.

This makes my blood boil. Any lawyer who litigated any case (including pro bono cases!) against Trump 1.0 or 2.0 could be fined (or worse) if AG Bondi thinks the case was “frivolous” or merely “vexatious.”

Even worse, the memo attempts to rig the game in Trump’s favor going forward: It’s meant to chill lawyers’ willingness to represent clients against Trump in deportation, election, and other cases.

An analogy to March Madness

I’ve been trying to come up with an analogy to illustrate this attack.

We’re in the middle of March Madness, with the men’s and women’s NCAA basketball tournaments in full swing.

Let’s say the NCAA issues a new rule to protect the top seeded team in the tournament. They explain that these are the best teams in the country, they’ve won the most games, the fans want to see them win, and they deserve to keep winning.

Other teams are, of course, still allowed to play in the tournament against the #1-seeded teams. They’re even allowed to have coaches in those games. However, the new rules say that after every game against a top-seeded team, the head coach for the #1 seed gets to decide if any plays the opposing team ran were “unfair, unsportsmanlike, or overly annoying.” If so, the coaching staff for the opposing team could face monetary fines or could be banned from coaching basketball.

There is no appeals process — the head coach of the #1 team gets final say on whether any of the plays were “unfair, unsportsmanlike, or overly annoying” and what the appropriate penalty is. As a result, opposing coaches back off from any aggressive plays and the #1 seeds cruise to easy victory.

We are all the opposing team in the real life version of this analogy. They’re trying to rig the game against us, and the stakes are even more dire than a shot at the national championship.

Subscribe now

“True enough,” I wrote, “but doesn’t resonate.”

The crisis has deepened, but our ability to communicate about the real-world impacts of such an abstract concept hasn’t improved.

Here’s an excerpt from a NY Times article being heralded as “must-read” analysis:

The line between arguments in support of a claimed right to disobey court orders and outright defiance has become gossamer thin, [legal experts] said, again raising the question of whether the latest clash between President Trump and the judiciary amounts to a constitutional crisis.

Legal scholars say that is no longer the right inquiry. Mr. Trump is already undercutting the separation of powers at the heart of the constitutional system….

Clear as mud.

Democrats, meanwhile, are still infighting over their failure to stand up to Trump’s spending bill and are missing another chance to meaningfully engage. Business leaders and influencers are having a contest to see who can stay silent the longest.

Subscribe now

Here’s my attempt to plainly define a constitutional crisis, show that we’re in one, and give examples of what that means for voters, business leaders, and nonprofits.

What’s a Basic Definition of a Constitutional Crisis?

Scholars write entire books on this question.

My answer: it's when one branch of government no longer follows checks and balances and separation of powers so it can seize more power for itself.

Currently, it's a court ordering the Trump Administration to do something or not do something, and the Administration refusing to comply with that order.

What’s the Latest Evidence of a Constitutional Crisis?

As TIME magazine wrote on Monday,

The Trump Administration appeared to openly defy multiple court orders [last] weekend, deepening concerns among Democrats and legal experts that the constitutional crisis many feared… has now arrived.

TIME provided evidence that the Administration is defying court orders related to halting deportations.

More concern arose when a judge in those cases demanded to know whether the government violated his order to halt deportations. Rather than willingly appear at the hearing, the Administration made the unprecedented move of telling the court to just cancel the hearing because they didn’t violate the order and weren’t going to answer any questions about it.

What Examples Illustrate the Real-World Impacts of a Constitutional Crisis?

1. Imagine you work for a nonprofit focused on voting, reproductive, or disability rights. The IRS selects your organization for audit, and because your programs “violate President Trump’s DEI Executive Orders” they freeze your bank accounts pending the outcome of the audit. You rush to court, and the court orders the government to unfreeze your funds. However, the government refuses to comply with the order for several months. By that time you’ve been laid off because the organization couldn’t make payroll with its funds frozen.

2. Image the company you work for has used the legal services of its favorite law firm for decades. The Trump Administration recently punished the law firm by banning it from federal courthouses, but the firm got a restraining order saying it’s still allowed inside courthouses. Despite the restraining order, courthouse security refuses to allow your lawyers in the building on the day of a major hearing. The court enters a judgment against your company for failure to appear, costing millions and resulting in layoffs.

3. Imagine you’re a small business owner. Your lease on the building that serves as your storefront and warehouse to fulfill online orders requires the landlord to take care of maintenance and repairs such as ceiling leaks. There’s a snowstorm, and when the snow melts a massive amount of water comes through the roof and makes the warehouse unusable just as your online sales skyrocket. The landlord drags her feet on repairs, so you get a court order requiring her to fix the roof or else pay up. She simply ignores the order, but later a post appears on her Facebook page saying, “If President Trump doesn’t have to follow court orders anymore, then neither do I.”

None of these examples has happened yet.

But any of them could become reality unless civil society — voters, business & nonprofit leaders, celebrities & influencers, the media — quickly begins to understand what’s at stake and starts to speak out against this Administration’s illegal power grab.

Subscribe now

Author’s Note: Analysis similar to this post first appeared in my separate newsletter, Interested Parties, which I publish on LinkedIn. Interested Parties provides longer, more in-depth analysis for readers in the business, social impact, philanthropy, and legal fields. You can subscribe to Interested Parties on LinkedIn. Thanks!

Some of the worst stretches were Trump’s extended, bullying rants against innocent transgender children. As Senator Chris Murphy predicted, Trump used trans kids as pawns and political cover to distract from the fact that he has no answers to real issues:

Senator Murphy’s post was just one of the great insights I picked up this week. Here are a few more talking points for your family gatherings and group texts this weekend:

Michelle Norris on Why Trump’s Policies Are Insulting to Farmers

MSNBC’s post-speech panel had a robust discussion explaining why Trump’s speech was insulting farmers and why his policies will be particularly harmful to commodity farmers. The discussion starts around the 1:00 minute into this video below.

Subscribe now

Pod Save America on Why DOGE is a Scam to Make the Rich Richer

On Monday, the guys over at Pod Save America destroyed any argument that DOGE is designed to reduce the deficit or save money for taxpayers:

And by the way, the end result of [DOGE cuts] is not reducing the deficit... They want to take that money… and [give] a gigantic tax cut for the rich.… Which is why they have to go even further and look to cut Medicaid or look to cut Social Security or whatever they're gonna do to try to pay for these giant tax cuts. So none of this results in any kind of tangible benefit for actual American citizens.

Pod Save on How to Cut the Budget if You Actually Care About Efficiency

A lot of friends well-meaning family might be asking, “well, can’t we get rid of waste and still keep the good stuff government does?”

Of course. The problem is that anyone who actually wants to would never do things the way Trump and Musk are operating. Pod Save explained the less cruel alternative:

You don't have to cut $4 billion [every] day. You don't have to scramble through the agencies finding little bits to cut every day. If you have a goal for a giant budget cut, you can propose it through Congress. … [Or] go to the cabinet secretaries and say… “I need a proposal for this many cuts by this date. And I know it's gonna be hard and I'm gonna be driving you guys every day and I'm gonna be meeting with you, but you tell me what we can cut.” But no, one fucking adult tech bro cannot oversee these cuts across every layer of our government. It's gonna lead to kids fucking dying.

They could have audited USAID, they could have used the authority that they have to trim where they could. And they could have sent Congress a list of cuts, a list of layoffs that they wanted to do. They could have done all that if the whole thing was [actually] about efficiency.

Drug Lords Aren’t Bringing Most Fentanyl into the Country; We Are

President Trump ignited his trade war by justifying tariffs on claims that drug traffickers are smuggling drugs (specifically fentanyl) into the U.S.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has the truth: U.S. government data shows that 80% of people arrested for smuggling fentanyl at US ports of entry are U.S. citizens — not immigrants or international drug lords.

Subscribe now

MSNBC Legal Analyst Barb McQuade with an Important Explainer on the Separation of Powers:

The Supreme Court ruled that Trump can’t freeze certain USAID payments. A lower court judge said USAID must pay, and the Supreme Court agreed.

McQuade points out an important nuance: this wasn’t an “activist” lower court judge imposing what they wanted. It was a reasonable judge interpreting what Congress’s law requires. The judge determined that the law on the books says USAID has to pay, and Trump doesn’t have authority to stop those payments unless he gets Congress to pass a new law.

This is what judges are supposed to do. They interpret the law and apply it to the situation in front of them. They don’t decide how they personally want the situation to turn out and issue a ruling that suits them. Don’t let Musk’s “impeach the judges” rants make you believe otherwise.

And One from Me: An Explainer That We Can Still Have Nice Things

I posted on BlueSky earlier this week that “MAYHEM is guaranteed to be a better Lady Gaga album than it is a governing strategy.”

MAYHEM, Gaga’s 7th album, is out at midnight tonight.

We all deserve to just dance this weekend.

Watching the news is tough. I’ve argued in this newsletter that it’s our civic duty to stay engaged, but in the words of a subscriber, “a man has to sleep at night.” It’s true.

Two things hit me especially hard in the last few days:

• The Trump/Vance/Zelenskyy debacle. The whole thing was devastating, but the gut-punch for me was realizing that when world powers negotiate peace for Ukraine, the talks will be between Europe on one side and America standing with the Russian invaders on the other. At least that’s how it looks for now.

• Trump’s post today announcing a crackdown on “illegal” protests on campuses, including cutting off funds for colleges that allow “illegal” protests, jailing US students who participate in them, and deporting international participants. This is real soldiers-on-campus stuff, and it should terrify you.

That’s where we are as Trump heads into his first State of the Union/Joint Address to Congress in a few hours. It’ll mostly be bluster and bombast, but here are three things I’ll be curious to see if we hear:

Subscribe now

What’s the Argument That Anyone is Better Off?

Seriously. Does MAGA have an argument that all of this is actually good for anyone?

The Midterm elections will be here before you know it. Republicans have tied themselves to Trump, and they’ll have to run for reelection on his record. Democrats will have to rebut that record.

Tonight is our first preview of next fall’s campaign ads.

So what’s the argument anyone is better off than a year ago? Prices aren’t down, the market isn’t up, and the world isn’t safer. How does MAGA sell it? Does the argument resonate with everyday voters? Is the Democratic response coherent at all?

Will He Mention Elections?

The always-excellent Marc Elias over at Democracy Docket recently surfaced the transcript of Trump’s speech to governors and uncovered what might be the four-part plan for where Trump wants to take the nation’s elections:

1. Proof of Citizenship required for all voters

2. Photo ID required for all voters

3. Paper ballots only (no electronic voting equipment)

4. One-day voting (no early voting, no vote-by-mail)

Entire books could be devoted to what’s wrong with this: it would disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans. Black, Brown, and young voters would be especially hard hit. Election results would take more time, be less trustworthy, and running elections would cost taxpayers more. I could go on.

Will Trump announce any of this out loud? Or do they keep their plans relatively quiet and work on it behind the scenes. I’ll be listening for this most of all.

Does He “Make Any News” About the Separation of Powers?

These speeches are a mix of “look how great I’ve been” and “look how great I’m going to be.” Something new is always announced.

I’ll be watching for anything new about executive orders, the scope of executive branch powers, or the court cases that have reigned in some of Trump’s early actions.

Remember, the Supreme Court Justices will have front row seats tonight, and Trump loves a powerful audience. Will he make any claims about the scope of his executive powers? Will he make any threats about the limitations of judicial branch powers or about ignoring court orders he disagrees with?

Doing so would be extraordinary, but with the first cases testing whether we’re going to have a President or a King on a fast track to the Supreme Court—will he be able to resist?

We’ll know soon enough.

Share

But, he said, since men run the government (and men are no angels), we need measures for the government to “control itself.” Thus, the Framers wrote a Constitution with separation of powers and checks and balances so the branches could be “the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”1

Without separation of power and checks and balances, it’s too easy for one branch to become more powerful than the others; it’s too easy for the rich & powerful to manipulate government for their own gain and to the detriment of others; and it’s too easy for single-ruler governance (exactly what the Framers were running from) to reemerge.

To say it plainly: our government is slow for a reason.

Waste

Even with checks and balances slowing things down, no one wants a wasteful or fraudulent government. Apparently that’s why a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed claimed, “Democrats Ought to Love DOGE.”

Maybe, but DOGE is doing a piss poor job uncovering waste.

DOGE says it found tens of billions in savings, but just the first round of reporting shows Musk’s math counts the same $650 million contract three times; a contract that supposedly saved $232 million was actually $560,000 (?!?); and an $8 billion “contract” that was actually an $8 million line of credit (meaning the real savings might be $0).

Subscribe now

Efficiency

It’s also possible for a slow government to be efficient. Once a law or policy is in place, efficiency means executing the law—getting results—with the least effort and expense.

The key word here is results, and that’s where DOGE fails once again:

• Firing workers and cancelling programs only to rehire or restore them days later is a master class in waste and inefficiency.

• Eliminating civil servants with decades of expertise is, to say the least, not efficient.

• Blasting through legal barriers so the government has to defend dozens of lawsuits is a monumental waste of taxpayer funds and DOJ lawyers’ time.

Speed

No one wants waste and everyone wants efficiency, but a slow, stable government that protects those in the minority and stymies single-ruler authority is exactly what Madison told us the Framers wanted.

They wanted to slow down lawmaking by dividing legislative power between two houses of Congress.

They empowered the President to slow down Congress by vetoing a bill before it’s on the books, but once a bill is law they required another act of Congress to repeal it.

And despite Musk’s most recent rant, they established a judiciary to slow down the other branches when they go too far. His Tweet from Tuesday:

If you’re following along, you know the answer: our government has judges who can override the will of the people because people aren’t angels. Just ask the 10+ million Africans ripped from their homes and enslaved in America. Ask Mildred Loving. Ask John Lawrence, Jr. and Tyron Garner. All of them victims of laws that were the clear and cruel will of the people.

When the people’s elected leaders violate the law or our most basic rights, the Framers wanted a government that could slow them down; a government that could “keep them in their proper place.”

The question is whether that’s still the country we want, because all of DOGE’s actions in the name of “waste” and “efficiency” are actually about creating a government with power concentrated in an executive branch (more precisely, in the President alone) allowed to move at lightning speed and go unchecked by any other branch.

For good measure, they’re even f*ing around with the idea of impeaching judges who dare stand up for the Framers’ constitutional system.

They’ll probably do it, too, if for no other reason than holding a bunch of impeachment hearings would be the absolute paragon of waste and inefficiency.

I said it before, and I’ll probably have to say it again: These are not American values. Or at least they didn’t used to be.

Subscribe now

The same night, he also fired the top legal officers in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. These top service branch lawyers are known as The Judge Advocates General, or JAGs.

The JAG Corps, Explained

JAGs have a number of responsibilities. They make sure military personnel don’t mistreat detainees. They prosecute members who violate military code.

They also provide legal advice to military leadership regarding combat rules and legal restrictions that apply to the military’s actions.

It’s illegal for DOD officers and employees to interfere with a JAG giving legal advice to the Secretary of Defense or any military commander.1 They must remain independent from politics.

So why fire the senior JAG in each military branch?

According to Secretary Hegseth, Trump fired them so they won't be "roadblocks to anything that happens."

Subscribe now

Trump Wanted the Military to Seize Voting Equipment Following the 2020 Election

The House January 6th Select Committee investigating Trump’s attempts to overturn the election obtained a draft executive order (ultimately never issued) that would have directed the Secretary of Defense to

“seize, collect, retain and analyze all machines, equipment, electronically stored information, and material records” from the 2020 election.

The draft order gave the Secretary of Defense 60 days to write an assessment of the 2020 election (apparently a ploy to keep Trump in power into February 2021).

Trump was personally involved plans to use the military to seize voting equipment, even though he was repeatedly told there was no legal basis to do so. Even Rudy Giuliani warned Trump he would “go to jail” for this.

The Guardrails are Off

Imagine it’s December 2026, just after the midterm elections. Majority control of the House is down to three races in California, New York, and Iowa that are headed for recounts.

The recounts proceed normally under state election law, with candidates having legal representation in a transparent process open to observers and the media. Democrats flip the California and New York seats, meaning they win control of the chamber and will be able to serve as a check on Trump’s legislative agenda.

Then, on January 1, 2027, just days before the new Congress is sworn in, Trump commands the Army to seize all the voting machines, ballots, and other election records from those two districts. He orders everything delivered to Speaker Mike Johnson so the House can conduct its own election audit with the assistance of DOGE and DOGE’s artificial intelligence tools. The only legal authority Trump cites for these actions is the U.S. Constitution.

This is where you’d want a politically independent Judge Advocate General to act as a “roadblock” and advise the Secretary of Defense and Chief of Staff of the Army that there’s no legal basis in the U.S. Constitution or elsewhere for the Army to enter states and seize election materials.

At risk of stating the obvious: our elections are safe and secure, and voters should feel proud participating in them. There are extensive safeguards against illegal voting, and numerous legal procedures to ensure officials reached the correct result. Adding the military to the equation can only cause more harm than good; there’s no legitimate reason—and no legal basis—to do it.

If the JAG Corps is loyal to the President instead of the rule of law, illegally impounding ballots is just one of the abuses we’ll need to worry about. I highly recommend this post over at The Contrarian for a full discussion of the important ways JAG attorneys have defending human rights in the past and the current emerging threats where we’ll need an independent JAG Corps going forward.

As it stands right now, there’s no one left—not even Rudy Giuliani—to tell Trump that his worst impulses about deploying the military on U.S. soil are illegal.

Subscribe now

For that to happen, we need to win elections in 2026 and 2028.1

We don’t how far Donald Trump will go to stay in power by preventing those elections from being free and fair, but we know he’s going to do something because he already has.

Last Night, Trump Moved to Take Control of the Federal Election Commission

The Federal Election Commission is the agency that discloses who’s funding candidates, and it prevents illegal dark money and corporate contributions from flowing to campaigns.

Without a functional FEC, we won’t know who’s paying for the political ads we see on TV, and there’ll be nothing to stop super PACs or foreign actors from illegally supporting candidates.

The FEC is an “independent agency,” like the SEC or the Federal Reserve. Independent agencies aren’t part of the President’s cabinet, and the President has limited ability to direct their actions or fire their leadership.

They’re independent because their work is so important that it should be a step removed from politics and Presidential control. (This makes sense with transparency in elections—we don’t want one party or the other placing its thumb on the scale in a way that could influence the way people vote.)

All that changed last night with a Trump Executive Order bringing the FEC and other independent agencies under Presidential control and reshaping the power structure of the federal government.

If Trump’s order survives legal challenges, it means the FEC won’t be able to propose—not pass, but even propose—new campaign finance rules without the White House reviewing them first.

Even worse: Attorney General Bondi and President Trump are now the FEC’s lawyers. The Executive Order prohibits the FEC from taking any legal position or interpreting campaign finance laws in a way that “that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion.”

What does this mean? Let’s say the law isn’t totally clear about whether political ads on Twitter/X have to include a “Paid for by ____” disclaimer like political ads on TV. FEC lawyers (experts in this area of law) decide the best legal interpretation is that, yes, candidates have to put the “Paid for by” box at the bottom of Twitter/X ads, and they prepare to issue that rule. Bondi and Trump disagree, and their legal opinion is final: Voters who see political ads on Twitter/X won’t know who paid for them.

Other sections of the Order go even further, but it’s not entirely clear if they apply to the FEC. If they do, the White House could re-apportion the FEC’s budget “as necessary and appropriate, to advance the President’s policies and priorities” and could install a “liaison” (a/k/a babysitter) at the FEC to make sure the agency follows all the new rules.

Subscribe now

Last Week, Trump Also Dismantled the Agency That Protects Our Elections from Cyber Attacks

But wait, there’s more. Our elections are a complex ecosystem of voters, voting laws, campaign finance rules, election workers, software systems, and more.

Like any ecosystem, they need protection from outside dangers.

One agency that protects elections is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in the Department of Homeland Security. CISA doesn’t only work on elections; it’s responsible for cybersecurity and infrastructure protection across the government.

When it comes to elections, CISA mostly supports state and local election officials by giving them resources to withstand cyberattacks, physical attacks, and other threats against voter databases, their office computer networks, etc. State and local election officials from both parties have praised CISA for providing this support.

On Friday, the Trump Administration forced CISA to stop all election security work pending an “investigation.” Trump’s DHS also cut off all funding to the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, a nonprofit organization that helps state and local officials share information and best practices about keeping our elections safe and secure.

Most reporting suggests the outcome of the investigation will be the permanent firing of most or all CISA federal workers.

In case you were wondering, the plan for gutting CISA and halting its election protection work appears on page 155 of Project 2025.

Subscribe now

But even the few Americans who closely follow the news have Trump fatigue. When we use charged jargon like “weaponization” and “political prosecution,” they tune out even more.

Instead, we could try to connect through shared values and relatable experiences to explain why the situation is truly so dire.

What is the “Weaponization” of the DOJ?

The ideas of fairness and power aren’t new to anyone.

Let’s say your teacher is awarding the top grade in class based on criteria set out at the start of the term. It would be fair if the best student got the top grade based on those criteria. You wouldn’t want another student to win just because they helped the teacher with a project for a different class, and you shouldn’t want to win simply you and the teacher attend the same small church.

Now imagine what’s at stake isn’t a grade but whether you’re going to federal prison, and imagine the person in power is the President of the United States.

In America, we say justice is blind. The only thing that should determine whether you go to jail is if there’s evidence you committed a crime. Your political party should have nothing to do with it.

If you didn’t commit the crime, you shouldn’t be locked up just because you’re a political opponent of someone in power. That would be a “political prosecution.”

If you did break the law, you shouldn’t be handed a get-out-of-jail-free card just for doing a favor for the person in power.

If these lines are crossed, then our justice system is no longer blind.1 Instead, it’s a tool that people in power can use to gain even more power. It’s a weapon.

Subscribe now

Trump Says Biden Weaponized the DOJ. Did He?

Trump says Biden weaponized the DOJ because the January 6th and classified documents cases were political prosecutions not based on evidence.

There’s no indication of that:

• All court filings indicated the charges against Trump were brought on the basis of (tons of) actual evidence.

• If Biden targeted Trump on a political basis, he would have filed the charges in time to hold trials before the election.

• If Biden was weaponizing his DOJ, why did he bring cases against his own son and Dems like NJ Senator Bob Menendez and NYC Mayor Eric Adams?

Another essential point is deep in the weeds: Biden had a strongly-enforced-and-adhered-to policy that White House officials don’t communicate with—let alone influence or direct—DOJ officials when it comes to which criminal cases to file.

This type of policy is exactly how justice stays blind and avoids becoming a political weapon.

Trump Shattered These Norms in Just Three Weeks

The Trump DOJ hasn’t—so far—publicly announced any prosecutions or investigations on political grounds. In her confirmation hearing, AG Bondi claimed all investigations will be “based on the facts and the law that is applied in good faith.”

Time will tell, because last week the White House and DOJ agreed to drop federal criminal charges in exchange for a political favor—despite a mountain of evidence that the defendant committed crimes.

Specifically, NYC Mayor Eric Adams—who had long opposed Trump’s attempts to crack down on immigration in NYC—agreed to help Trump with his anti-immigrant efforts, but only if Trump’s DOJ dismissed the criminal charges against him.

Trump agreed, but with leverage. He agreed to dismiss the charges “with prejudice,” which is a fancy legal term meaning Trump can re-file the charges anytime.

This is the ultimate political weaponization. This turns Adams into Trump’s puppet, forcing him to keep doing favors for Trump out of fear that the federal criminal case against him could reappear at any time.

###

Adams does a favor for the man in power and doesn’t have to answer for his crimes. Trump uses our public institutions to gain political power for himself. These are not American values. Or at least they didn’t used to be.

Share

But state Supreme Court races in North Carolina and Wisconsin are here to remind us that local elections matter, every vote counts, and there’s important news outside of Trump, Musk, and DOGE.1

Here’s a quick explainer, then we can all go back to hating RFK Jr:

State Supreme Courts are More Important Now Than Ever

In Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court is expanding Presidential power while taking away our individual freedoms.

State Supreme Courts, on the other hand, have recognized broad protections for abortion, ended partisan gerrymanders, and weighed in on vital issues such as environmental protection and criminal justice reform.

State courts can also help shift national norms, as we saw when a series of state-level victories for marriage equality helped shape the national mood and laid the groundwork for the U.S. Supreme Court’s federal recognization of marriage rights.

Subscribe now

Republicans Are Trying to Steal a Supreme Court Seat in North Carolina

I’m sorry to sound so extreme about it, but that’s what’s happening.

One race in the country still hasn’t been certified since November: In North Carolina, voters re-elected Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs over Republican Jefferson Griffin by 734 votes. A recount of every ballot in the state confirmed the result.

Three months after the election, Griffin refuses to concede. Instead, he went to court to cancel over 67,000 votes in an attempt to overturn the result.

The legal cases and appeals are complex, but they mostly boil down to a basic concept:

Griffin is trying to change the rules of the game after it’s been played.

• North Carolinians voted according to the rules in place on Election Day (e.g., they registered to vote using a certified version of the state’s registration form).

• Griffin wishes the rules had been different (e.g., voters should have been required to provide information the form didn’t ask them for).

• Griffin says if voters used the approved form but didn’t find a way to provide the information he thinks should have been required, their votes should be tossed.2

This is a huge taxpayer expense, and it undermines faith in our system by making voters feel irritated and confused.

Worst of all, if Griffin’s ploy works it creates legal precedent that losing candidates in any state could try to use to overturn legitimate results in the future.

Wisconsin Sets the State for the First Post-Trump Election

In Wisconsin, a Justice is retiring and the election to replace her will determine ideological control the state Supreme Court.

The candidates are Susan Crawford, a liberal judge in Dane County, and Brad Schimel, a conservative judge in Waukesha.

Early voting starts in a month. Election Day is April 1.

The race doesn’t just have implications for the rights and daily lives of nearly 6 million Wisconsinites. It’s also being viewed as a barometer of the national political mood in the first 100 days of Trump 2.0.

Schimel showed a slight lead in a recent poll, while Crawford is ahead in fundraising.

Voting in local elections matters, and, if you’re able, supporting local candidates can make a huge difference.

If you don’t know where to start, I strongly recommend setting up an account at Oath.vote. Oath helps you identify where your donations are needed most and where they’ll have the greatest impact based on the races and issues you care about.

This messaging is about as effective as calling Trump a “threat to democracy” was in helping Harris win the election. It’s true enough, but it just doesn’t resonate.

Yes, Trump is defying court orders and is threatening to ignore others. Yes, this counts as a constitutional crisis.

Plain Language, Please

But we need to talk about it in terms that mean something to people.

How about: defying court orders means burning Schoolhouse Rock to the ground. It means canceling everything we’ve taught our kids about the separation of powers. It means the United States no longer has a system of checks and balances.

Subscribe now

These concepts (used to) mean what we all learned in grade school: Congress passes bills, the President signs them into law, and courts can say those laws are unconstitutional or the President acted beyond what Congress authorized.

Trump’s recent actions say (1) he doesn’t need Congress’s permission to do anything; he’s President so he can do whatever he wants; and (2) no court can say otherwise.

The President is “judge, jury, and executioner.”

Voters may not care, but we’ll at least be explaining things in a framework that allows them to decide whether they care.

Explaining that “we’ve gotten our toes right on the edge of a constitutional crisis” merely allows them to decide they were right that Democrats are the party of out-of-touch elites.

The Bad News: Voters Like Dictators

Gen Z whisperer John Della Volpe has an indispensable post explaining why all this is actually attractive to young voters:

• Gen Zers are highly engaged and want to solve issues; they see civic engagement as a duty. They may not vote in huge numbers, but they’re big on volunteering (especially locally) and direct action.

• The existing infrastructure for political and civic engagement can’t keep up with how they operate in the world. Everything takes too long to get started. They want action now and results immediately—just like they’re used to getting digital information and social interaction immediately.

• They don’t trust existing systems. Polls show Gen Z doesn’t believe in Congress, traditional media, the Supreme Court, or even social media companies.

Given this sense of civic duty and desire to fix things fast—but distrust of existing institutions—a new dictatorial force that bucks the system in the name of immediate results is compelling.

The bottom line, says JDV:

DOGE’s model isn’t just lean, agile, and impact-driven—it’s a direct rejection of traditional bureaucracy. Whether seen as a visionary or a disruptor, Musk has given young people (especially men) an alternative to slow-moving institutions, and they are taking it. He has built a system that feels urgent, responsive, and rewarding—everything government does not.

I recommend clicking over to read the recommendations for how Democrats can compete on these terms (within constitutional bounds) reclaim Gen Z engagement.

In short, we need to prove that government can have checks on power while still being dynamic, engaging, and able to deliver results without grinding to a halt.

We can start by being a political party that’s able to do those things.

Subscribe now