Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks during a protest in support of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, February 10, 2025, at the CFPB headquarters in Washington.
The Revolving Door Project, a Prospect partner, scrutinizes the executive branch and presidential power. Follow them at therevolvingdoorproject.org.
During his March 4th address to Congress, President Donald Trump defended the first six weeks of his already disastrous second stint in the White House the way he defends all of his indefensible actions: by bullshitting into a mic. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in turn tapped Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) to deliver the Democratic Party’s rebuttal, a troubling continuation of the ostensible opposition party’s “opposition” to Trump 2.0.
Slotkin, an ex-CIA agent who served as a national security adviser in the Bush-Cheney administration—a precursor to Trump’s bloodthirsty, anti-intellectual, and authoritarian reign—holds the distinction of being the first Democrat endorsed by Dick Cheney’s daughter, former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY). Even though the elder Cheney’s 2024 endorsement of Kamala Harris hurt her chances of defeating Trump in November, Schumer remains committed to his ill-fated strategy of courting “moderate” Republican voters in wealthy suburbs rather than focusing on the Democratic base, including disaffected working-class voters who have been leaving the party in droves.
Read more from the Revolving Door Project
Slotkin’s support for some of Trump’s cabinet nominees and for the GOP’s Laken Riley Act, which eliminates due process for immigrants accused of crimes, gives her the bipartisan credentials fetishized by the likes of Schumer. And those same right-wing votes make her ill-suited to combat Trumpism. At a time when we need a full-throated defense of public institutions that are under attack, Slotkin paid lip service to the need for “a more efficient government,” going so far as to praise Ronald Reagan—a key figure in the neoliberal counterrevolution against the New Deal.
If Schumer-esque appeals to the “good ole days” of bipartisan comity are destined to fail, what’s the way forward for Democrats? Contra James Carville, Democratic officials inside and outside of Congress ought to be taking action simultaneously on three overlapping planes: ideological, rhetorical, and practical. This activity—ideally coordinated by a “shadow cabinet” of progressive counterparts to Trump’s ghoulish cabinet members—should convey to the electorate that Democrats, not Republicans, care about working people and are going to improve their lives if given the chance in coming years.
Ideological Work
Ideologically, Democrats need to frame themselves as the anti-billionaire party. This shouldn’t be hard to do because Elon Musk is the personification of billionaire avarice. Democrats need to foster and harness growing public disgust at how Musk, his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) austerity squad, and members of Trump’s billionaire cabinet are decimating the public good to benefit themselves and a tiny minority of super-wealthy elites.
Musk, a bona fide eugenicist with unprecedented access to government data, has anointed himself the sole arbiter of which public services are worthy of taxpayer support and who is an undeserving “parasite.” At home, DOGE and the White House have put virtually every good thing the government does in their crosshairs, from public health and anti-poverty programs to bank regulation, tax law enforcement, weather forecasting, and public lands management. In the world’s poorest countries, the richest man in history is literally “snatching nutrient paste out of the mouths of starving babies,” as the Prospect’s Ryan Cooper put it.
Before Musk became ubiquitous, left-wing critiques of billionaire power may have seemed abstract. Now that Musk has purchased the U.S. government and is trying to annihilate people and projects he deems inferior, the existential danger of allowing a handful of individuals to accumulate economic and political power without restraint should be obvious to everyone.
Democrats must vocally oppose the current, grisly manifestation of plutocracy if they want to convince voters that they care about small-d democracy. Corporate and billionaire-friendly Democrats who complain should be made to answer which they fear more: downward redistribution or full-fledged fascism?
Rhetorical Work
Rhetorically, Democrats must relentlessly highlight how the Trump administration and Musk’s DOGE wrecking crew are inflicting material harm on ordinary people, all while failing to address the cost-of-living crisis that they said would be their biggest priority.
There’s no shortage of foretold catastrophes being created or enabled by the White House and DOGE:
- Airplane crashes;
- The resurgence of measles and other previously eradicated diseases;
- The cruel abandonment of cancer patients;
- The capitulation to unrestricted poisoning of our food, water, and air;
- The surrender to a potential bird flu epidemic;
- The unleashing of predatory scam artists on vulnerable people;
- The escalation of anti-union policies; and
- The intensification of planet-heating pollution, which exacerbates extreme weather disasters and increases the odds of an insurance-triggered mortgage crisis.
Rather than letting Trump and Musk set the terms of public debate—for instance, ludicrously and offensively calling the January 29 plane crash in Washington, D.C., a “DEI crash”—Democrats need to go on offense. While the investigation into that aviation disaster is ongoing, there’s no reason why Democrats can’t warn people about the escalating risk of “DOGE crashes” brought about by the Trump-Musk assault on federal workers.
What’s happening in the aviation sphere reveals the “logic” of Musk’s smash-and-grab operation. Two days after Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy fired hundreds of Federal Aviation Administration workers, including those who maintain air traffic control infrastructure, he announced that he was inviting private-sector consultants to help “deliver a new, world-class air traffic control system that will be the envy of the world.” And who do you suppose was first on the list of invitees? Of course, it was none other than SpaceX, one of Musk’s companies. You break it, you get it!
Meanwhile, food and housing are getting more expensive, as the Trump administration ignores corporate consolidation, launches ill-conceived trade wars, terrorizes and deports immigrant workers, and inflames the fossil fuel–driven climate emergency. This story of brutal class war not only jeopardizes the general welfare but could also culminate in an economic crash.
As Osita Nwanevu pointed out recently, Musk’s overarching innovation is that he has, through DOGE, deregulated and privatized the work of deregulation and privatization. For Democrats to credibly criticize Trump and Musk’s war on the public good, they can’t favor a return to the status quo ante of government-led deregulation and privatization over today’s unelected billionaire-led versions. They need to oppose any further enclosure of the commons, advocating for the restoration of New Deal institutions that have been sacrificed at the altar of financialization—and for the creation of new ones to expand the public domain and reduce market dependence.
Practical Work
Practically, Democratic officials need to inconvenience everyone involved in advancing Trump’s objectives, including the rogue Musk. Democratic attorneys general have slowed the Trump-Musk assault via lawsuits. We need to see the same energy from congressional Democrats, who have so far failed to meet the moment. Indivisible has explained how House Democrats and Senate Democrats can “delay and defy” Trump’s agenda. Democrats may not control either chamber, but contrary to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’s (D-NY) claims, they do have multiple points of leverage to disempower Musk and protect crucial programs.
The message from congressional Democrats should be as follows: Either Trump and Musk follow existing laws, or we stop participating in the development of new laws. That means Democrats should be a “no” on everything until DOGE stops sabotaging the government and starts following the law.
Congressional Democrats can also spotlight abuses and ask the Government Accountability Office to conduct investigations at every turn, as my colleague KJ Boyle wrote recently. The important follow-up step is to use those requests to garner headlines and media appearances to amplify their message.
The same goes for formal hearings, where congressional Democrats can invite expert witnesses—such as fired former government officials—to explain the negative impacts of DOGE’s rampage, as well as informal hearings, like the one held last week by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) with former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau officials.
Finally, Democrats can also take long shots, such as trying to impeach Trump personnel like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has supported and evidently lied about Musk’s infiltration of the federal payments system. While unlikely to be successful, such a move would raise the issue’s salience and force Republicans to defend it.
A Shadow Cabinet to Coordinate Opposition to the Trump-Musk Barrage
The three planes of action outlined above are intertwined, and apart from congressional oversight, none are limited to Democrats on Capitol Hill. There’s plenty for state and local Democrats—governors, AGs, legislators, mayors, and other officials—as well as prominent party members to do.
Moving forward, Democrats could take inspiration from parliamentary systems and set up a “shadow cabinet” full of energetic progressives who ruthlessly criticize every bad move made by their official Trump counterparts. Of course, to emulate such a model, there needs to be a “shadow prime minister” who organizes these efforts. If one thing is clear, it’s that neither Schumer nor Jeffries seems interested in providing that leadership.
By contrast, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is already off to a good start with his anti-oligarchy tour. At stops around the country, he’s explaining to working people in districts that flipped from Biden to Trump how the Republican president and Musk are making their lives worse. Though she was denied a leadership position on the House Oversight Committee by the Democratic Party’s corporate-friendly old guard, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has also been a frequent and vocal critic of Trump, Musk, and DOGE. Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-TX), or another like-minded lawmaker would make a fine “shadow PM.” So too would former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who was barely ousted from the Senate by a deluge of corporate money, or flight attendant union president Sara Nelson.
Imagine a shadow Treasury secretary explaining the tangible downsides of Bessent’s pro-billionaire actions; a shadow interior secretary condemning Doug Burgum’s public lands giveaways; a shadow labor secretary denouncing Lori Chavez-DeRemer’s attacks on worker protections; a shadow transportation secretary underscoring how Musk stands to benefit from the privatization of air traffic control infrastructure; a shadow health and human services secretary defending public health from RFK Jr.’s ill-informed blitz; a shadow housing and urban development secretary slamming Scott Turner’s attempts to hurt low-income tenants; a shadow Environmental Protection Agency administrator ripping Lee Zeldin’s accommodation of polluting corporations; and a shadow U.S. trade representative explaining how Trump policy is undermining a nascent manufacturing renaissance.
Now picture all of that happening during a daily press conference, held on Capitol Hill or at televised town halls across the United States. At each one, shadow secretaries are flanked by displaced government workers who describe how they used to protect the public before Musk’s coup made it impossible to do so, and what they would do if given sufficient resources.
That kind of past-, present-, and future-oriented storytelling and organizing is necessary to defeat the fascist threat. If Democrats think that sucking up to Big Tech executives and promoting a purportedly centrist agenda devoid of economic populism is the way to go, we’re doomed.
Trump’s regressive policies—including the incoherent tariffs and Musk’s evisceration of the government functions that enable broad economic prosperity—have already made a recession more likely. When that happens, Trump and his co-conspirators must be made as infamous as FDR made Herbert Hoover. A shadow cabinet can do that.
