Democrats continue to stand strong.

October 27, 2025

As the government shutdown enters its 27th day, Democrats remain unified in exercising the sole leverage they have in Congress: the filibuster. The filibuster allows Democrats to stop proposed legislation in the Senate—like the GOP proposed continuing resolution—that does nothing to curtail Trump’s ongoing violations of the Constitution and perpetuates the cruel cuts of the Big Ugly Bill.

Before discussing the shutdown standoff, it is helpful to remind ourselves why we are here: Congress must pass 12 appropriations bills to enact the 2026 budget. To date, the Republican-controlled Congress has passed zero bills—not a single one.

Republicans can end the shutdown—in whole or in part—by proposing and passing one or more of the 12 appropriations bills. Because Republicans can’t even do that, they are asking Democrats to give Trump a blank check and a hall pass to continue running the government without any oversight from Congress.

Demands that Democrats cave to Republican pressure to end the shutdown are tantamount to asking Democrats to surrender the single legislative tool they possess to constrain Trump. The role of Congress as a check on presidential power stands on the slender reed of the filibuster. If Democrats relinquish the filibuster, Congress will cease to exist as a check on Trump’s unlawful conduct.

Rather than lobbying Democrats to capitulate, political commentators and party faithful alike should recognize that Republicans control Congress and can end the shutdown any time they choose. They can negotiate with Democrats on a bipartisan solution—which is how governing parties govern.

It is only in Donald Trump’s Republican Party that negotiation is forbidden. Democrats managed to negotiate deals with Republicans to keep the government running during 11 of 12 years under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. (The only shutdown occurred when Republicans tried (but failed) to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2013).

Moreover, Republicans can override the filibuster at any time they choose by creating a carve-out for appropriations bills, which would require only 51 votes.¹ (Republicans don’t want to create a carve-out for appropriations bills because they understand they will be in the minority for most of the next century and want to have the protections of the filibuster.)

In short, Democrats aren’t “causing” the shutdown. Republicans are. And the public is rightly holding the GOP and Trump responsible for the shutdown.

Republicans are beginning to feel the pressure to offer relief. Last week, Senate Republicans proposed a bill to pay the military and essential workers who continue to report to work. Democrats mostly voted against that bill (Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock, and John Fetterman supported the GOP bill). Republicans then voted down a Democratic proposal to pay the military, all federal workers, and federal contractors.

Paying the military is becoming a key pressure point. See The Hill, Military pay in jeopardy as shutdown continues.

The Defense Department illegally used funds designated for non-payroll purposes to meet the October 15 salary for members of the military. See Lawfare Media, How Trump Violated the Law to Pay the Military. (“To make these payments, President Trump used research and development (R&D) money that the Department of Defense had left over from last fiscal year—an action that was patently illegal.”)

While top DOD officials may be willing to continue violating the law (the Anti-Deficiency Act) to make payroll, there are practical limits to treating the Defense budget as one big slush fund. If DOD officials divert funds from budgets used to fuel aircraft and maintain nuclear silos to pay troops, those illegal transfers eventually degrade the military’s operational readiness.

An easy solution would be for the House and the Senate to pass the defense appropriations bill. That would require Republicans in Congress to do real work. It would also require the House to return to session, allowing a vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act!

So . . . the shutdown continues because Trump is desperate to avoid the release of the Epstein files!

Some of the media is misreporting the effect of the shutdown by claiming that it is allowing Trump to run roughshod over the Constitution and accumulate even more unchecked power. That claim is wrong.

Of the many ways in which Trump is violating the Constitution, none depends on the ongoing shutdown. For example, Trump is violating the Constitution by:

• Withholding funds in violation of Article One and the Impoundment Control Act;

• Using the military to kill non-combatant civilians in international waters;

• Firing hundreds of thousands of workers in violation of federal employee protection laws;

• Withholding funds from universities and research institutions based on their refusal to reject diversity and inclusiveness in the workplace;

• Selectively releasing FEMA funds only to those states that voted for him in 2024;

• Using the Department of Justice to persecute his political enemies;

• Dismantling federal agencies created by Congress; and

• Deploying the US military in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Each of the above violations of the Constitution should result in impeachment, conviction, and removal from office. But none of them take advantage of the shutdown. Rather, Democrats are attempting to use the shutdown to curtail the above unconstitutional conduct by Trump—and if they give up the filibuster, they will have lost all leverage.

Even the recently announced withholding of funds for SNAP food subsidies has nothing to do with the shutdown. Funding for SNAP is structured to continue even during shutdowns (through emergency reserves). But the White House has decided that funds set aside to continue SNAP funding during shutdowns will not be used for that purpose! See Heather Cox Richardson, Letters from an American, October 25, 2025. (“Yesterday the Trump administration said it would not use any of the approximately $6 billion the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) holds in reserve to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).”)

See also The Guardian, Food benefits set to expire for 41 million people as US shutdown continues.

Per The Guardian,

According to a memo seen by Reuters, the [USDA] indicated that it would not draw on emergency reserves to fund food benefits in November.

A statement from the leader of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the Trump administration had the opportunity to act sooner to ensure benefits don’t run out.

“It could have, and should have, taken steps weeks ago to be ready to use these funds,” the statement from Sharon Parrott said, as reported by the Hill. “Instead, it may choose not to use them in an effort to gain political advantage” as Republicans seek to exert pressure on Senate Democrats to vote in favor of a spending bill that would reopen the federal government.

So, don’t accept the notion that Democrats are denying SNAP benefits to recipients by refusing to capitulate to Trump. Funds to continue SNAP are available (unlike funds to pay the military, which the Trump administration illegally diverted from operations budgets).

Democrats must remain united in their resolve to end Trump’s continuous violation of the Constitution. Capitulating to end the shutdown will do nothing to advance that goal. Rather, it will signal to Trump that he has broken the will of congressional Democrats. That would be a bad outcome—and highlights the essential role of grassroots resistance as the last line of defense for democracy!

Trump is claiming a China trade deal in advance of his trip to China—and most of the media buys into the propaganda (again).

Those of you old enough to remember Lucy repeatedly pulling the football at the last minute as Charlie Brown attempted to kick have a good reference for Trump’s latest claim of a “trade deal” with China. See AP News, US and China say a trade deal is drawing closer as Trump and Xi plan to meet.

But Trump’s past trade deals have mostly involved vague statements about what US trading partners “intend” to do at some point in the future—with no actual agreement to do anything. See The Atlantic (8/8/25), So, About Those Big Trade Deals.

At this point, no self-respecting media outlet should publish any claim of the Trump administration about a trade deal.

The NYTimes online lead story on Sunday evening is about Trump’s erratic foreign policy. See NYTimes, Trump, Long Erratic on the World Stage, Reaches a New Level. (Behind a paywall.)

Although the Times begins by suggesting that Trump has had a few successes in trade talks (an exaggeration, see The Atlantic article, above), the Times quickly gets to the point:

More than nine months into his second term, the only thing predictable about Mr. Trump’s handling of global affairs is that it will be an unpredictable mix of instinct, grievance and ego. And there is little evidence that his tantrums, swerves and reversals are strategic and thought-out, as his supporters sometimes insist, rather than the products of impulsivity, mood and circumstance.

The Times article goes on to mention Trump’s use of the military to kill civilians in the Caribbean and the Pacific. (“Then there are the strikes in the Caribbean and the Pacific, which seem likely to accelerate once the Gerald R. Ford carrier group is on station off Venezuela in a few weeks, a move ordered on Friday.”)

While the Times deserves credit for calling out Trump’s erratic behavior on the global stage, it fails to mention that Trump’s tariffs are likely illegal and that the killing of civilians is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, US criminal law, the Geneva Convention, and the law of war—a significant omission by the Times.

But I digress. It is likely the media will be filled with reports over the next week of triumphant “trade deals” with China. But a “framework for a deal” is not a trade deal. Just ask Japan, Canada, South Korea, and the European Union. (See Atlantic article, above.)

Federal judge empanels grand jury in Florida to investigate “grand conspiracy” against Trump

Trump’s DOJ has succeeded in convincing the chief judge in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, to empanel a grand jury to investigate an alleged “decades-long” federal government conspiracy against Trump. See ABC News, Trump ally says grand jury empaneled in Florida to investigate a sweeping conspiracy against Trump.

The chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, Cecilia Altonaga, empaneled the grand jury in the Fort Pierce region of the district. There is only one federal judge sitting in the Fort Pierce federal courthouse: Judge Aileen Cannon! If an indictment is issued, it is likely that Judge Cannon would preside over the trial.

Per the ABC article above, a Trump political ally and conservative podcaster pushed his “buddy”, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Quiñones, to empanel the grand jury:

In an interview on “The Charlie Kirk Show,” [Mike] Davis said his “buddy” Jason Quiñones -- the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida -- moved to empanel the grand jury after Davis “pushed very hard” to investigate what he says is a conspiracy against Trump.

The decades-long grand conspiracy against Trump is as baseless as the “Chinese thermostats controlling Italian satellites to steal the 2020 election” conspiracy. It is a fever dream of true believers who spend their time talking to one another on podcasts. They have convinced themselves that their delusions are true.

In any event, the investigation is baseless, and an honest grand jury should refuse to indict. Any indictment should be subject to immediate dismissal for selective prosecution, given the public statements of Trump’s ally, Mike Davis, that he “pushed” his “buddy” to empanel the grand jury to investigate Democrats.

And, of course, Trump immediately posted a statement on Truth Social, calling the alleged conspiracy the “greatest political crime in history.” The case is a sham, politically motivated. Any rational judge would dismiss an indictment immediately.

The likelihood that Aileen Cannon will dismiss any indictments for selective prosecution is remote, and orders denying motions to dismiss a criminal case are not appealable. When Democrats regain control of Congress, a first order of business should be the impeachment and removal of Judge Aileen Cannon from the bench.

Concluding Thoughts

Readers are suffering from the flood of “bad news” stories predicting the end of democracy. I know because my inbox is filling with emails from readers attaching those stories. Frequently, the emails have no explanation or commentary, just the attached article.

I can’t tell whether the readers are trying to convince me to give up on democracy or hoping I will rebut the article. The number of such stories has exceeded my ability to respond to each “here is a scary article” email. So, I will take the opportunity to address the articles here.

It is true that Republicans are undermining democracy every day through unprecedented violations of the Constitution and democratic norms. We should be concerned about those developments. But we should spend more time and energy on what we are doing to fight those efforts than on making sure every friend and acquaintance has received a personal copy of the doomsday article.

Raising the alarm is critically important. I try to do so in this newsletter. But only raising the alarm is worse than useless—it is counterproductive. If all we do is say, “Look at this bad development,” and “Look at that bad development,” we won’t have any time left to plan our defense of democracy.

At this time in our history, every available position for “issue spotter” is filled—and the list for that position has millions of eager applicants. We know what the issues are; what we need are more people who will lead the resistance.

I understand that talking about bad developments is a way of mediating anxiety. I do it. It is a healthy and normal response to bad news—up to a point. But if all we do is repeat and amplify bad news, we normalize it.

Here is a small example. The destruction of the East Wing is horrendous. The proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom is an abomination. Both the destruction and remodeling are being conducted in a way that violates the Constitution. We should condemn the actions and resolve to repair the damage to the White House complex at the earliest possible opportunity.

But many commentators are ending their observations with a statement to the effect that “the remodeling makes it look like Trump doesn’t plan to leave the White House.”

Repeating that statement (without any suggestion that we will resist the outcome) normalizes the notion that Trump will stay in the White House beyond January 21, 2029 (Inauguration Day for the next president).

So, too, with flip observation that “There might not be elections in 2026 or 2028.” Every time we repeat those claims without vowing to fight to prevent that outcome with all our might, we are normalizing the notion that there will be no elections in 2026 and 2028.

We need to stop fretting and obsessing over every threat made by Trump and start touting what we will do to ensure that his threats are assigned to the trash heap of history. We must act with confidence and courage if we want people to follow us in the battle to save democracy. Doing so increases the likelihood of short-term success.

People are suffering. They are looking for reasons to hope and leaders to follow. If you can give that hope and be that leader, you will be a blessing to everyone you reach.

Democracy will not perish unless and until every one of us quits. I am not quitting; you are not quitting; so let’s spend less time contemplating the “end” of democracy and more time planning our defense and rehabilitation of democracy in the shortest time possible!

Stay strong, everyone.

Talk to you tomorrow!

Protest Photos

Oakland, CA: “Only 35 of us…but organized (so very last minute) by the team (Brad & Travis) who do the “human banners” (most recently the Ocean Beach No Kings on 10/18)”

Hamden, CT

Upton MA:

Franconia, NH:

Fort Collins, CO:

Framingham MA.

[I used Adobe Photoshop to remove a sign for a liquor store that ruined the mood of the photo!]

New Haven, Connecticut.

Daily Dose of Perspective

1. The complete explanation for changing the 60-vote filibuster to a 51-vote majority is complicated, but the short explanation is this: The Senate can simply change the “interpretation” of how the filibuster applies to certain types of bills. Creating a new “interpretation” requires only a 51-vote majority. The new interpretation becomes a “precedent” binding on future applications of the filibuster. See Congressional Research Service, Procedures for Considering Changes in Senate Rules.