Trump’s interminable address to Congress was met with Democratic responses ranging from angry heckling, from Texas Rep. Al Green, to sober counterprogramming, from Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin.
The split response underscores the lack of unity among Democrats in how to respond to Trump’s destructive opening blitz. At times, the two sides seem to behave as if they are enduring different realities.
Progressives see a constitutional crisis unfolding — in which oligarch and Trump megadonor Elon Musk has emerged as the grand vizier of Trump’s government, orchestrating a lawless shutdown of entire agencies, firing thousands of federal employees without cause, and usurping much of Congress’ power of the purse. These progressives believe that this fraught moment must be met with heroic measures — lest the democratic system collapse.
Other Democrats — including party leaders like like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, both of New York — are proceeding with a more conventional, consultant-tested approach, seeking to duck out of the way as much as possible, and let Trump and the GOP own the political cost of unpopular actions, with Democrats then positioning themselves to reap benefits in the 2026 midterms.
One approach worries that Trump is marching the nation off an authoritarian cliff, and insists that a fierce defense of America’s core values is not only necessary but will galvanize a backlash that can return Democrats to power. It views anything less than full opposition politics as complicity and weakness.
The other approach assumes our political structures may strain, but will hold long enough for the next election — when voters can choose to put an unpopular lame duck Trump in a box by giving Democrats control of the legislative branch. This moderate side views the hell-raising of progressives with a distrust bordering on enmity, believing the path back to power depends on picking up disaffected centrists with soothing performances of normalcy.
At Tuesday’s address to Congress, these different approaches manifested in the decision of whether to boycott or protest the event — or to keep up appearances and participate in the annual ritual’s pomp and circumstance.
Leading progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D. N.Y.), for example, refused to attend and instead live-skeeted the event on the social media platform Bluesky, commiserating with people who said they couldn’t stand to watch Trump: “Protect your peace.”
Progressives who did attend made a show of their opposition — defying centrist admonitions to not “become the story.” Rep. Green waved a cane and shouted at Trump: “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid!” — a reference to the GOP’s just passed budget framework. Speaker Mike Johnson ordered him removed by the Sergeant at Arms.
Progressive Members in the Democratic conference, including Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), held up small black signs with slogans like “FALSE” and “MUSK STEALS,” waving them at Trump. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) took off her jacket and turned her back to Trump with a t-shirt reading “RESIST.” Crockett later walked out of the address, as did progressive stalwart Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
The centrist wing of the party was given the party’s formal rebuttal. The Democratic response was delivered by freshman Michigan Sen. Slotkin — a former CIA analyst and member of Congress from a swing district — who won statewide in Michigan in the same election Trump carried.
Slotkin has already staked her new role in the Senate as a centrist. Among Democrats, only Pennsylvania’s Sen. John Fetterman has fewer ‘no’ votes against Trump’s extreme Cabinet members than Slotkin. She also helped give Trump a legislative win by voting for the draconian Laken Riley Act, which creates indefinite detention for immigrants merely accused of breaking the law.
The out-party response to a State of the Union is one of the most dangerous platforms in politics, providing enduring embarrassment to the likes of thirsty Sen. Marco Rubio and high-drama Sen. Katie Britt.
Slotkin performed ably and with real gravitas. She stood before a backdrop of four American flags, speaking of her upbringing as a “Cold War kid,” her politically divided but peaceful household, and how the tragedy of 9/11 spurred her into public service.
When she wasn’t pining for Ronald Reagan’s clarity of purpose in opposing the Russians, Slotkin gave the kind of speech that any Bill Clinton-era Democrat would recognize, even insisting: “If you work hard, play by the rules, you should do well and your kids should do better.”
Slotkin’s speech ran a swift 10 minutes. She acknowledged conservative America’s hunger for change. “We need a more efficient government,” she said, “You want to cut waste, I’ll help you do it.” But Slokin went after Trump for the “reckless way” he’s pursued transformation, creating “political instability.” She harped on Musk “and his gang of 20-year-olds” for their lax security “using their own computer servers” with “no protections against cyber attack.”
Slotkin did acknowledge the danger that democracies can “flicker out,” and she suggested that Trump has put ours “at risk.” But she also insisted that minor actions — a step above “doom-scrolling” — like attending town halls can put the nation back on track. And she promised that Democrats would be the “principled leaders that you deserve.”
It was a strong speech, but hardly a call to the barricades. However, it was strides better than a performance earlier in the day by Sen. Mark Warner, a Democratic senator from Virginia, who appeared on FoxNews to preview Trump’s address to Congress.
Many of Warner’s constituents in Northern Virginia have been directly targeted by the DOGE bloodletting in Washington, including many veterans. But Warner — a former communications exec worth more than $200 million — struck to a poll-tested, conciliatory message, including touting the “great, great progress” Trump has made on lowering border crossings, adding: “That’s something we ought to celebrate.”
With friends like these, progressives might retort, who needs Republicans?
