Republicans are increasingly panicked about losing their House majority in next year’s elections while Democrats are increasingly confident about winning one. Both parties might, however, be overestimating the stakes of this struggle.
Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has largely governed without even consulting the legislative branch. He has imposed tariffs across the globe and then revised them without any specific authorization from Congress, arguing that it granted the president emergency powers over trade decades ago. He is conducting a military campaign in the Caribbean without legislative approval, either.
He did need Congress to pass tax legislation this year, but Republicans have had no legislative agenda since. Note that when administration officials argue for abolishing the filibuster, they rarely mention bills they want to enact once it’s gone. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent didn’t list any when he made the case in The Post recently, dwelling instead on the prediction that the Democrats will abolish it anyway if they get a chance.
The absence of a Republican agenda makes it easier for Democrats to drive public debate over issues, as they have done on health care and the cost of living. But it also means that if Democrats take the House, they can’t really thwart Trump by denying him the legislation he wants — because there’s not much he wants from Congress.
It’s true that a House majority would give Democrats more leverage in spending negotiations. But it would not remove Democrats’ frustrating sense of powerlessness over the Trump initiatives they most oppose. A Democratic House won’t be able to stop Trump’s deportations, undo his policies on diversity, equity and inclusion or make him rehire federal employees whose jobs he has eliminated. Even if Democrats also took control of the Senate and abolished the filibuster themselves, he would still have a veto over legislation.
A Democratic House could and would investigate the administration’s conduct. Some of those investigations could be worthwhile. But it is hard to imagine, at this late date in Trump’s political career, any revelation that would break his hold over Republican voters, which is the source of his power.
Judging from the fundraising emails I get from Republican-aligned groups, what Republicans most dread about a Democratic House is the possibility of a third Trump impeachment. But why? With Senate conviction out of the question, impeachment has become a glorified censure resolution. Trump was on track to win reelection in 2020 after his first impeachment, losing only because of the covid-19 pandemic and the public reaction to his leadership during it. The second impeachment didn’t keep him from roaring back to the presidency. If anything, a third impeachment — even one making an airtight case — would bind his base to him more firmly.
Democrats frequently say that Trump has been acting as though he were a king, yet they also seem to assume that a blue wave can stop him in his tracks. Not likely, both because of the inherent limits of a House majority and because of Trump’s expansive ideas about executive power. The long-running trend toward a more powerful presidency, accelerating under Trump, has been widely discussed (and often decried) across the political spectrum. But it’s less widely acknowledged, perhaps because it is too depressing, that elections to Congress have declined in importance as the legislature has atrophied.
That doesn’t mean that it’s pointless for Democrats to try to win the House. If they do well, it can help set them up for a bigger win in 2028 — and a governing majority starting in 2029. They can do some test runs on their own agenda. Winning big in the 2006 midterms and then again in the presidential year of 2008 allowed Democrats to enact Obamacare and other major policy changes.
But it’s the 2028 presidential election that will matter most. And as long as Trump can ignore Congress, he won’t truly be a lame duck.
The post Democrats’ hopes lie in a House win. But how much would it slow Trump? appeared first on Washington Post.
