Imagine that you were a high-ranking official in Donald Trump’s administration. Imagine that you believed in the Dark Enlightenment dream of dismantling liberal democracy itself—of “killing the woke mind virus,” ending birthright citizenship, and using federal power to suppress dissent. Now imagine you’re openly defying the Supreme Court, declaring that protest aids and abets terrorism, directing the FBI and IRS to target political enemies, and seriously considering invoking the Insurrection Act on flimsy pretexts. What would stop you?
Certainly not impeachment. Not with a compliant Republican Congress. Not with a conservative media ecosystem ready to justify any abuse of power as a patriotic necessity. The only thing that might give you pause is the possibility that Democrats would regain control and then do to you what you’ve done to them.
That fear of reciprocal power and legal accountability was once enough to preserve American political norms. It was the logic of mutually assured destruction: if you break democracy now, they’ll break you later. That’s how informal guardrails were enforced, even through dark chapters like Watergate or Iran-Contra. But those norms no longer hold because no one believes Democrats will retaliate.
This is the context for the quiet battle raging within the Democratic Party leadership. A few anonymous but influential centrists are urging party leaders to soft-pedal Trump’s detention of legal residents in foreign internment camps and pivot to kitchen-table economics instead. Even as constituents demand action and donors grow restless, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries still signal caution, urging patience and restraint.
Meanwhile, the rhetorical vacuum is being filled by some of the most unlikely voices in Washington. Old-school conservatives like Bill Kristol and Jonathan Last are wondering aloud where the “Abolish ICE” movement goes for its apology. David Brooks is quoting Assata Shakur and calling for a civic uprising. The Washington Monthly’s own Bill Scher, hardly a radical, has offered a blistering rebuke to the timidity of the party’s more cautious voices.
There have been some bright spots. Senator Cory Booker broke Strom Thurmond’s filibuster record in a marathon floor speech denouncing Trump’s abuses. Senator Chris Van Hollen forced a meeting with abducted U.S. resident Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, delivering proof of life and drawing global attention. Senator Chris Murphy’s rhetoric has been sharp and effective. House Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (along with her “anti-oligarchy tour” partner Senator Bernie Sanders), Jasmine Crockett, and Robert Garcia have been doing excellent work. Their energy and determination carry the tacit message that those who broke the law and tried to impose an authoritarian regime on the U.S. will face appropriate justice at the end of the day. Representative Jamie Raskin was explicit about warning El Salvador’s leader: “Look, President Bukele—who’s declared himself a dictator—and the other tyrants, dictators, autocrats of the world have to understand that the Trump administration is not going to last forever,” Raskin said. “We’re going to restore strong democracy to America, and we will remember who stood up for democracy in America and who tried to drive us down towards dictatorship and autocracy.”
But these have been exceptions rather than the rule. Most Democrats in leadership and positions of power have stayed quiet—avoiding press conferences, shunning symbolic actions, and allowing business to continue as if the country weren’t barreling toward authoritarianism.
When pressed, party leaders often respond that they can do little substantively. That protests are performative. That voters are tired of drama. But that’s not the point. The point isn’t what Democrats can do today. It’s what they’re signaling they’re willing to do when they return to power.
If Trump and his allies face no meaningful consequences, they have no reason to stop. If Republicans don’t believe that Democrats will act with equal force to protect democracy—legally, aggressively, unapologetically—then there’s no deterrent to further escalation.
As Illinois Governor JB Pritzker put it, “Bullies respond to one thing only: a punch in the face.” Democrats don’t need to mimic MAGA’s tactics. But they must prove they have the spine to make authoritarians pay. Otherwise, they’re not a political opposition but a speed bump.
Republicans have spent decades learning that they can get away with it. Nixon resigned but was pardoned. Reagan’s team sabotaged Carter and lied about Iran-Contra with no consequences. Bush officials misled the country into war, then walked into cushy think tank jobs. Trump’s first wave of cronies—Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Steve Bannon—faced slaps on the wrist. Trump himself walked free after legal institutions dragged their feet for four years. Why should this time be any different?
MAGA doesn’t fear Democrats because history tells them they need not. They don’t believe that future Democratic presidents will use the IRS to crack down on Project 2025 architects, the DOJ to investigate Christian nationalist groups, or the FBI to follow foreign influence trails back to their political donors. But they should.
Democrats don’t need to become liberal authoritarians. But they need to show they’re not afraid to use the levers of power to defend democracy, not just in lofty speeches but in institutional terms: subpoenas, audits, investigations, regulation, and prosecution.
The stakes aren’t just moral. They’re strategic. If MAGA believes it can consolidate power without consequence, then why not roll the dice on permanent minority rule? Why not bet the farm on the Curtis Yarvin/Peter Thiel fantasy of a post-constitutional state run by decree?
That’s the bet they’re making. The only way to stop it is to convince them it’s too risky to attempt.
Democrats can’t wait for economic conditions to shift or for voters to come to their senses 20 months from now. They need to act like a party that intends to govern and govern with force when it’s their turn again. The message has to be clear, consistent, and credible: if you break democracy, you don’t get a quiet retirement. You get consequences.
