Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why a loyal opposition is essential to democracy

Woman's hand showing red thumbs up and blue thumbs down on illustrated green background
PM Images/Getty Images

When I was the U.S. ambassador to Equatorial Guinea, a small, African nation, the long-serving dictator there routinely praised members of the “loyal opposition.” Serving in the two houses of parliament, they belonged to pseudo-opposition parties that voted in lock-step with the ruling party. Their only “loyalty” was to the country’s brutal dictator, who remains in power. He and his cronies rig elections, so these “opposition” politicians never have to fear being voted out of office.

In contrast, the only truly independent party in the country is regularly denounced by the dictator and his ruling party as the “radical opposition.” Its leaders and members are harassed, often imprisoned on false charges and barred from government employment. This genuine opposition party has no representatives at either the national or local level despite considerable popular support. In dictatorships, there can be no loyal opposition.


In fact, the term “loyal opposition” was coined during the 19th century in democratic Great Britain. It referred to members of parliamentary opposition parties who, as long as they pledged loyalty to the crown, could criticize the incumbent government’s policies. This allowed members of the British Parliament’s loyal opposition to dissent without fear of being accused of treason.

The concept of a loyal opposition also exists in our country albeit in somewhat different form. Members of Congress as well as those who serve in government and the military swear an oath of loyalty not to a president, but rather to the U.S. Constitution. Protected by the First Amendment, the party out of power as well as the media, civil society and citizens are free to oppose policies of the president and members of his party by doing so peacefully and abiding by our laws.

But this has not always been the case. In 1798, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Alien Enemies Act, which not only imposed restrictions on immigration, but also limited free speech. Specifically, the Sedition Act criminalized what the Federalist Party then in power deemed to be false and malicious statements against it. Members of the opposition Democratic-Republican Party, as well as journalists supporting them, were sometimes prosecuted. After the Democratic-Republicans came to office, Congress repealed the Sedition Act. But this was not the last time the U.S. government used its power to repress free speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The Sedition Act of 1918, passed during World War I, threatened prosecution of anyone who expressed opinions viewed as undermining the war effort. Beyond that, it prohibited language judged to be “disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive” against the U.S. government, the American flag and the U.S. armed forces. Justified as necessary in wartime, the act was repealed in 1920.

Sadly, this history could be repeated. At an October rally in Colorado, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump announced Operation Aurora. He said his plan would employ the Aliens Enemies Act of 1798 to arrest and deport criminal gang members allegedly here illegally. And while Trump has not called upon Congress to pass new sedition laws, he has threatened to abridge free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. This includes silencing domestic critics he claims are “enemies from within” who imperil U.S. security. Additionally, the president-elect has said he may cancel broadcast licenses of network-affiliate television stations due to their “unfair” coverage of him and his campaign.

In the coming months, Trump will assume the presidency, and his Republican Party, which already has a Senate majority, is likely to control the House of Representatives as well. For this reason, it is essential they regard the Democratic Party as the loyal opposition. In a democracy, there is a distinction between “enemies” and “adversaries” that should never be forgotten.

Democrats will certainly differ with Republicans and President Trump on major policy issues, but this does not mean the Democratic Party will be “disloyal” in its opposition. Although in the minority, Democratic lawmakers have the right to be heard. Along with President Joe Biden, they are committed to the peaceful transfer of power as required by the U.S. Constitution.

The bedrock of U.S. democracy is showing respect toward political opponents who are loyal to our system of government, its values and our country. Regardless of how you voted, this is what must unite us as Americans.

Asquino is a retired career diplomat and author of “Spanish Connections: My Diplomatic Journey from Venezuela to Equatorial Guinea.

Read More

Reagan’s handshake has become a chokehold under Trump

WASHINGTON, DC- MAY 06: U.S. President Donald Trump (R) meets with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (C), alongside Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Canada Dominic LeBlanc in the Oval Office at the White House on May 6, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Getty Images)

Reagan’s handshake has become a chokehold under Trump

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — As the Los Angeles Dodgers face off against Canada’s Toronto Blue Jays for the World Series, the first couple of games featured an advertisement that shot around the world. All because when U.S. President Donald Trump noticed it, he reacted like an on-again/off-again girlfriend had just keyed his car.

“The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs,” Trump wrote online, announcing the termination of “all trade negotiations with Canada.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Crisis Not Averted: How Government Shutdown Exposes America’s Food Insecurity

Young volunteers assembling grocery bags filled with food donations, providing essential support to individuals facing hunger and hardship

Getty Images/Fillipo Bacci

Crisis Not Averted: How Government Shutdown Exposes America’s Food Insecurity

As the longest government shutdown in history continues, the Trump administration informed U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of Rhode Island that it would pay out 50% of the SNAP benefits in November to the 42 million Americans who rely on food stamps.

This announcement comes just days after McConnell ruled that the administration could not halt the SNAP program.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Mamdani and Sliwa Appeared Twice on the New York City Ballot

Person voting

Chris Graythen/Getty Images

Why Mamdani and Sliwa Appeared Twice on the New York City Ballot

As New Yorkers headed to vote for their next mayor and other local officials, those unfamiliar with New York elections found a surprise: Zohran Mamdani, Curtis Sliwa, and several other candidates were listed twice. The mayor-elect appeared as a Democratic Party candidate and as a Working Families Party (WFP) candidate; Sliwa appeared as a Republican candidate and, as the owner of multiple cats, as the candidate for the Protect Animals party.

Soon enough, questions and rumors started circulating online about this double-listing. Some people were just confused. Why were candidates listed twice? Would a vote for Mamdani on the WFP count for the Democrats? But others, like Elon Musk, said it was a scam, hinting that it might be a fraudulent ploy to help Democrats cheat their way to victory.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump's Quiet Coup Over the Budget

U.S. President Donald Trump, October 29, 2025.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Trump's Quiet Coup Over the Budget

In “The Real Shutdown,” I argued that Congress’s reliance on stopgap spending bills has weakened its power of the purse, giving Trump greater say over how federal funds are used. The latest move in that long retreat is H.R. 1180, a bill introduced in February 2025 by Representative Andrew Clyde (R-GA). The one-sentence bill would repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 in its entirety—no amendments, no replacement, no oversight mechanism. If continuing resolutions handed the White House a blank check, repealing the ICA would make it permanent, stripping Congress of its last protection against executive overreach in federal spending and accelerating the quiet transfer of budgetary power to the presidency.

The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was a congressional response to an earlier constitutional crisis. After Richard Nixon refused to spend funds Congress had appropriated, lawmakers across party lines reasserted their authority. The ICA required the president to notify Congress of any intent to withhold or cancel funds and barred them from doing so without legislative approval. It was designed to prevent precisely the kind of unilateral power that Nixon had claimed and that Trump now seeks to reclaim.

Keep ReadingShow less