The Trump Administration Targets Congress—Again

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

For the second time in less than a month, the Trump administration has used law enforcement to directly target Congress. And for the second time in less than a month, Congress is showing that it doesn’t have the desire or ability to defend itself. Republicans are mostly unwilling to do anything to stand up to Donald Trump, and Democrats are incapable of exerting either formal or informal political power. The Constitution’s checks and balances are premised on each branch wanting to protect its powers. What happens if that’s not the case?

In an incident last week that emerged publicly only late last Friday, police from the Department of Homeland Security handcuffed an aide to Representative Jerry Nadler, one of the most prominent Democrats and Trump critics in the U.S. House. The confrontation occurred at a federal building in Manhattan that contains both an immigration court and Nadler’s office. Officers eventually released the aide without making an arrest.

The reasons for the detention are, naturally, disputed. In a video, an officer says, “You’re harboring rioters in the office.” No riot had occurred, though. In a darkly ironic statement on Saturday, DHS claimed that officers were trying to inspect the office out of concern for the safety of Nadler staffers and were obstructed by, um, a Nadler staffer. According to Nadler’s office, his staff had just witnessed federal agents detaining migrants outside the immigration courtroom. Struggling to reach deportation quotas, DHS has embraced the tactic, arresting a number of people just after cases are closed or dismissed; the strategy has drawn fierce criticism from advocates. Nadler is requesting a congressional investigation into the event.

This incident follows another from last month, when Democrats attempted to inspect a DHS facility in New Jersey. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested on the scene, and though the charge was dropped—and a judge thrashed the prosecutors—interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba, Trump’s former personal lawyer, then used dubious evidence to charge Representative LaMonica McIver with assaulting federal agents. (McIver has denied the charges.)

Under Trump, the executive branch has pursued a multipronged attack on Congress’s independence and powers. In addition to pressure from law enforcement, the White House has sought to seize power over regulatory agencies that Congress established explicitly to have independence. Although Trump backed down from a plan to install Cabinet members without Senate confirmation, he has used acting appointments vigorously—Habba, for example, is serving in an interim capacity and is not confirmed. And Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought once again said over the weekend that he wants to use impoundment to circumvent Congress’s power of the purse.

Yet Congress has done almost nothing to push back. This moment is the culmination of years of fecklessness, which has occurred under the leadership of both parties but probably originated in an overhaul by Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. Congress has become less and less productive legislatively. It can’t pass budgets. It has often deferred to the executive branch, happy to let the president take political heat.

Because Republicans currently control both houses of Congress, the onus is on them to act. The Founders expected that rivalry between the branches would help ensure balance, not anticipating the intense partisan polarization of the moment, in which GOP affinity overrides the desire to defend congressional muscle. Where does that leave Democrats? They can try to use lawsuits; judges have been the most consistent locus of resistance to Trump’s power grab, but the courts were slow and not always helpful when Congress tried to sue during his first term. Democrats can also try to rally public opinion to oppose a president who polls show is unpopular.

If that’s the plan, it’s not going well. Yesterday, CNN’s Dana Bash asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries about what had happened at Nadler’s office.

“In terms of how we will respond to what Trump and the administration has endeavored to do, we will make that decision in a time, place, and manner of our choosing,” Jeffries replied, sounding exactly like a ChatGPT version of a Democratic leader. “But the response will be continuous, and it will meet the moment that is required.”

Bash replied with the obvious question: “What exactly does that mean?”

Jeffries served up some more polysyllabic word salad. “In terms of additional things that may take place with respect to our congressional oversight, authority, and capacity, we will respond in a time, place, and manner of our choosing if this continues to happen.”

Apparently, Jeffries realized that he didn’t win much confidence in February when he threw up his hands and wondered, “What leverage do we have?” But his new rhetoric doesn’t give voters anything more to hold on to. The administration has already concluded that Jeffries is just bluffing. Before McIver’s charges, Jeffries warned the administration against punishing any members of Congress. If they crossed that “red line,” Jeffries suggested, he’d retaliate. What exactly would he do? “They’ll find out. They’ll find out.” Habba crossed the red line without hesitation—and so far without consequence.

No wonder voters are uninspired. A CNN poll released over the weekend found that Americans see a greater distinction between the vision of the two parties than in the recent past. Given Trump’s unpopularity and voters’ disapproval of his agenda, that ought to be good news for Democrats, but they are proving incapable of seizing the moment, instead continuing to relitigate the 2024 election.

The attacks on Congress aren’t a problem just for Democrats—at least not in the long run. Republicans happy to surrender powers when a president is enacting policies they like may rue the loss of those powers the next time a Democrat is in the White House. More important, though, checks and balances are designed to protect any branch or figure from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over not just the other branches but also the rights of citizens.

“The Trump administration is really using totalitarian or even authoritarian practices,” Nadler told The New York Times after the incident at his office. He added: “We have to fight them. We don’t want to be a fascist country.” Let’s hope he’s not just begging the question.

Related:

• The tragedy of the Congress (From 2022)
• The big, beautiful Republican shrug

Here are four new stories from The Atlantic.

• The secret history of Trump’s private cellphone
• The deadly virus of anti-Semitic terrorism
• What the fastest-growing Christian group reveals about America
• A bizarre PTSD therapy “seemed too good to be true.”

Today’s News

1. The man who attacked a demonstration in Boulder, Colorado, for Israeli hostages has been charged with a federal hate crime.
2. After their second round of direct peace talks, Russia and Ukraine did not make significant progress but did reach an agreement to exchange all sick and severely wounded prisoners of war, plus those younger than 25.
3. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow it to proceed with its plan for mass layoffs across government agencies, which was blocked by a federal judge.

Dispatches

• The Wonder Reader: Isabel Fattal rounds up some honest, not-always-rosy, but often hopeful advice for the college graduate in your life.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

More From The Atlantic

• Inside the creepy, surprisingly routine business of animal cloning
• The Supreme Court’s green double standard
• The anti-anti-feminist election

Evening Read

You Don’t Know Yourself as Well as You Think You Do

By Julie Beck

Know thyself: Many have said this. Socrates—maybe you’ve heard of him? Though he seems to have gotten the phrase from the oracle at Apollo’s temple in Delphi, where it was chiseled into the stone facade. In the Tao-te Ching, Lao-tzu wrote, “If you understand others you are smart. If you understand yourself you are illuminated.” And Shakespeare had his own pithy aphorism, “To thine own self be true,” presupposing that thou knowest enough about thine own self to be true to it.

Good advice, to a point. If you know absolutely nothing about yourself or your likes, wants, values, or personality, you either are a baby or have bigger problems than a dead philosopher can address.

Yet sometimes all of modern life seems to be pushing people toward knowing themselves in more and more granular ways.

Read the full article.

Culture Break

Watch. Reformed (on Max), the latest TV show featuring a charming rabbi, leavens existential depth with comedy, Gal Beckerman writes.

Read. Melissa Febos’s new book, The Dry Season, recounts Febos’s year of celibacy and the freedom it gave her to reconnect with the world.

Play our daily crossword.

Isabel Fattal contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.