As I noted this morning on X, the entirely predictable Chuck Schumer cave on government funding is a sign of total Democratic dysfunction. They purposefully played up the importance of a fight where they were always going to crumble, because anyone with a brain knows in a shutdown it would've been Elon truly unleashed. Which would look something like this:
Here’s the Punchbowl News breakdown:
Now onto Democrats. What a mess this has become.
A government-funding fight that began with Democrats demanding restrictions on Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE has ended with Democrats folding, and now sniping bitterly at each other.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his leadership team distanced themselves from Schumer’s decision — but didn’t name him — in a statement Thursday night. Other House Democrats took direct aim at Schumer, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Even Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee and Schumer ally, thinks it’s a big mistake.
Let’s be blunt here: Democrats picked a fight they couldn’t win and caved without getting anything in return.
We’ll also note that it’s more than five months into FY 2025 already. Even with another month of negotiation – what Democrats were asking for – it’s still not clear that they would’ve notched any policy wins.
And there’s a reason Republicans put Democrats in this position – because they know Democrats would eventually cave. And they did.
During this whole fight, Democrats never managed to put Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Trump in a tough spot. There are plenty of policies House Democrats could’ve asked for in the CR — more money for certain programs, for instance — that would’ve placed Republicans in a bind. But they never made the case publicly for anything like that.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, essentially tried to have it both ways. They spent the last few days — which included three long and contentious lunch meetings — warning each other in private about the grave dangers of forcing a government shutdown. But in front of TV cameras, they were trashing the House GOP CR and insisting they wouldn’t vote for the funding measure. This won them praise from progressives, activist groups and House Democrats.
Schumer, who didn’t take a public position until last night, fired a warning shot on Wednesday when he said Republicans didn’t have enough Democratic votes to pass the CR, basically threatening a filibuster. In the meantime, Senate Democrats pushed for a short-term CR intended to buy time for a bipartisan funding deal that was never going anywhere.
This set up the Democratic base for disappointment for seemingly no reason.
Progressives think Trump is already damaged by the often chaotic start to his second term. The stock market is slumping and public angst over his handling of the economy is growing. Progressives believed a shutdown would’ve further contributed to the appearance of an out-of-control president and forced Republicans to give in.
Yet that’s an indirect strategy at best, and it may not have worked. Progressives also had no answer to how they would end a shutdown if Trump and Republicans didn’t back down.
Let’s talk about Schumer. First, we need to acknowledge that this was a lose-lose situation for Schumer, who knew he’d get pummeled by the left for allowing the CR to pass or end up shouldering the blame for a shutdown if he held firm.
On substance, Schumer feels he did what’s required of party leaders — making tough decisions and taking the heat that comes along with that. In this case, there were Democrats in the “Vote no, hope yes” camp who Schumer was speaking for as well.
“We have to make these decisions based on what is best for not only your party, but for your country,” Schumer said. Schumer also quickly posted a NYT op-ed justifying his case.
But here’s the problem: Schumer had been making those same arguments against a shutdown for days in private. Yet he let this drag out, giving Democrats a false sense of hope that the caucus was actually going to fight.
More from Politico:
House Democrats privately and publicly steamed Thursday evening about Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to back passage of a GOP spending patch they had fiercely opposed.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said he was “extremely disappointed,” while Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) called it a “gut punch.” Some Democrats attending the yearly Democratic policy retreat here went so far as to privately hope that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) would launch a primary challenge against Schumer — though he’s not up for reelection until 2028. Some centrist lawmakers even quipped about cutting checks to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign.
And here’s Chuck Schumer’s surrender spin:
Ezra Levin, the co-executive director of the liberal grassroots organization Indivisible, quickly dubbed it the “Schumer surrender.”
“I guess we’ll find out to what extent Schumer is leading the party into irrelevance,” he said in an interview, adding that his decision “tells me maybe he’s lost a step.”
The news that the top Senate Democrat would be backing down dejected scores of House members who were gathered at a resort about 25 miles outside of Washington for the Democratic Caucus’ annual policy retreat.
They had stuck together behind House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who had wrangled all but one of his members to oppose Republicans’ seven-month funding patch earlier in the week.
“Extremely disappointed,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said after he heard the news. “It gives them the ability, Elon Musk the ability, to go through and continue to do the shit he’s doing.”
And further outside Washington, longtime party activists and high-dollar donors fumed about Schumer: “He sucks,” one state party chair who was granted anonymity to respond candidly, adding that the cave constituted “political malpractice.”
In anticipation of the criticism he was certain to receive, Schumer delivered a 10-minute speech on the Senate floor defending his decision, later holding a question-and-answer session with Capitol Hill reporters and publishing a New York Times op-ed.
His points were two-fold: First, a shutdown would play into Trump and Musk’s hands, he argued, allowing them to put their slash-and-burn campaign into overdrive. His second argument was more political — and in keeping with his long history as a leading strategist counseling his party to pay heed to the concerns of America’s middle class above all else.
“For Donald Trump, a shutdown would be a gift,” Schumer said. “It would be the best distraction he could ask for from his awful agenda.
“Right now, Donald Trump owns the chaos in the government. He owns the chaos in the stock market,” he added. “In a shutdown, we would be busy fighting with Republicans over which agencies to reopen, which to keep closed, instead of debating the damage Donald Trump’s agenda is causing the American people.”
Democrat Transom subscribers, don’t say I didn’t warn you:
Senate Retirements Could Hurt House Dems
In Minnesota, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) is seriously considering a run to replace Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.). Craig was first elected when she flipped a GOP seat in 2018. In November, Craig beat Republican Joe Teirab by 13 points.
In Michigan, Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.) is considering a Senate run after being encouraged to hop into the race to succeed retiring Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.). McDonald Rivet, a freshman who’s seen as a rising Democratic star, won Michigan’s 8th District by six points even as President Donald Trump carried the seat in the 2024 presidential election.
And in New Hampshire, Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) is weighing a run after Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) announced this week she wouldn’t seek reelection. Like Craig, Pappas arrived at the House following the 2018 “Blue Wave.” Pappas beat GOP candidate Russell Prescott in November by eight points to represent New Hampshire’s 1st District.
In all these House seats, Republicans hope that open races without the Democratic incumbents will increase their odds of victory. With the House GOP majority standing at an incredibly slim margin, every seat counts in 2026.
“The math is in our favor,” NRCC Chair Richard Hudson said in a statement. “We will capitalize on this momentum on the battleground and retain and grow our Republican majority.”
In Ohio, Frontline Reps. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) and Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio) — who both are at risk of being redistricted into unfavorable terrain — are being urged to run statewide. Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) is also seen as a statewide candidate in 2026.
Of Course Columbia Student Can Be Deported
Erielle Azerrad in City Journal.
CUAD was one of the primary agents of chaos on Columbia’s campus during last spring’s “encampment,” during which rioters smashed windows, defaced and occupied buildings, disrupted classes, and harassed and threatened Jewish students. Interestingly, recent court filings show that Khalil received his green cards just five months ago—long after he and CUAD wreaked havoc (and just eleven days after President Trump’s electoral win).
CUAD’s words are as anarchistic as its actions. The organization has identified itself as “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization” and requested “instruction from militants in the Global South.” It insisted that members must “continue to escalate until the empire crumbles,” cited a violent takeover of a prison in Bangladesh by Islamists as a model of escalation, and noted that CUAD was inspired by the “Palestinian resistance”—that is, Hamas and other foreign terrorist organizations. The group has celebrated acts by domestic terrorists, including the attempted firebombing of a federal building in Oakland, California, by serial arsonist Casey Goonan, and threatened to shut down Columbia University.
Despite his defenders’ claims, Khalil’s alleged activities make his deportation perfectly legal—and reasonable—under federal law. Doing so is consistent with what the Supreme Court has called the government’s “power of self-preservation” against those who seek its destruction, as Khalil’s organization has so readily advocated.
Under U.S. immigration law, noncitizens or “aliens”—including green-card holders like Khalil—are expected to meet a certain standard of behavior set forth by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Failure to do so renders them “deportable aliens” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227.
A range of bad acts might render a noncitizen deportable, including marriage fraud, voter fraud, certain firearm offenses, or domestic violence. Relevant to Khalil’s case, U.S. law stipulates that an alien is deportable if he “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” Additionally, the Secretary of State can seek the deportation an alien if the Secretary “has reasonable ground to believe [that the presence or activities of an alien] would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images
Crucially, “support” for a terrorist organization need not be monetary to constitute grounds for deportation or denial of entry. Publicly supporting a terrorist organization in a capacity ordinarily described as “speech” may still render an alien deportable.
Contrary to the claims of the left and the media, such restraints do not run afoul of First Amendment case law. The Supreme Court has long held that some classes of individuals—including students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, and foreigners—may be subjected to certain restrictions on their speech. The Court unequivocally declared in Turner v. Williams that some views may be “so dangerous to the public weal that aliens who hold and advocate them would be undesirable additions to our population.” Governments, the Court continued, “cannot be denied the power of self-preservation,” and thus they have the right to deport individuals, like Khalil, who support foreign terrorist organizations and the destruction of Western civilization.
Consistent with this precedent, lower courts routinely uphold deportations or denials of entry based on an alien’s public support for a terrorist group. In 2018, for example, the Sixth Circuit upheld a decision by immigration courts denying entry to an alien who had copied and distributed flyers on behalf of two Iranian terrorist organizations. The court made clear that U.S. immigration law contains no “carveout” for independent political advocacy on behalf of terrorist organizations. Similarly, in 2014, the Ninth Circuit upheld an immigration court finding that an alien had provided support to Mojahedin-e Khalq—later designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization—after he had produced flyers and written articles in support of the group and provided weapons training to its members. It did not matter that at the time of the alien’s support, the group had not yet been designated.
The Department of Homeland Security alleges that Khalil, in similar fashion, distributed pro-Hamas flyers on Columbia University’s campus bearing the Hamas insignia, materials purportedly originating from Hamas’s own media arm. It’s worth noting that unlike in the above Ninth Circuit decision, Hamas was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department in 1997, well before Khalil’s activities. If substantiated, that allegation presents clear grounds for removal. Furthermore, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was reportedly presented with intelligence concluding that Khalil poses a national security threat to the United States, which would provide yet another basis for removal under the INA.
Appeals to Khalil’s free speech rights are meritless. A green card is not synonymous with citizenship, though many seem to believe otherwise. Indeed, the federal government has the power to revoke a green card at any time, consistent with its statutory authority and assuming due process.
Feature
Tablet Magazine: Free Speech Wobbles in the UK
Items of Interest
Foreign
National Interest: Trump's Russia Ukraine Reset
Wall Street Journal: Trump’s Ukraine Peace Strategy Put to Test After Putin Balks
Semafor: Europe Pushes to Unite Over Ukraine
The Telegraph: Putin Does Not Want Peace in Ukraine
Brussels Signal: Europe Wants Trump to Stand with Them
Semafor: Europe Boosts Ties With Friends Spurned by Trump
The Spectator: Vladimir Putin Has To Give Peace a Chance
The Spectator: Saudi Arabia’s MBS Steps Back Into Spotlight
Express: Trump Admin Drafts Military Plans on Panama Canal
The Hill: Trump Pushes Greenland In Meeting With NATO Secretary
NYT: How Mexico's President Won Trump's Praise
Domestic
Washington Examiner: Hakeem Jeffries Doesn’t Budge on Funding Bill
Washington Examiner: Trump Battles Nationwide Injunctions
Wall Street Journal: William McKinley Is Turning in His Grave on Tarriffs
Washington Examiner: Falsehood at Heart of Peter Navarro Tariff Fantasy
Mediaite: Ingraham Presses Vance on Economic Pain
Wall Street Journal: Trump Guantanamo Plan Runs Into Problems
Semafor: Why Three Senators May Leave Washington to Run for Governor
Mediaite: John Fetterman Has Come a Long Way
The Spectator: Why Eliminating DOE Is Key to Restoring American Culture
The Spectator: Caldwell: Against Renaming the Gulf
Mediaite: Leftists Invade Trump Country Town Hall, Erupt in Boos
Washington Examiner: Resistance Makes Trump Stronger
Washington Examiner: Shining Daylight on How Democrats Blew 2024 Election
New York Magazine: Eric Adams Is About to Catch Another Lucky Break
MSN: JD Vance Experiences Flood of Boos at Kennedy Center Show
The Telegraph: Breaking Down JD Vance's Run-in with Pro-Ukraine Protesters
Health
Wall Street Journal: Mehmet Oz Steps Forward to Run CMS
Wall Street Journal: Research Shows Xanax Drug Benzodiazepines Causes Harm
Ephemera
The Spectator: Is Trump Going to Kill Off Champagne?
The Spectator: Versace's Left Donatella Versace
Variety: Invincible Finale Features Walking Dead Reunion
Hollywood Reporter: First Reactions to Alex Garland A24 Iraq War Film
Hollywood Reporter: The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie Review
Quote
“Consider all that you've gone through, all that you've survived. And that the story of your life is done, your assignment complete. How many good things have you seen? How much pain and pleasure have you resisted? How many honors have you declined? How many unkind people have you been kind to?”
— Marcus Aurelius