Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The first step in dumping Trump

The first step in dumping Trump

Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives on stage to speak during an event at his Mar-a-Lago home on November 15, 2022 in Palm Beach, Florida.

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Martin Skladany is a law professor at Penn State Dickinson Law.

Former President Trump has been called many things from a would be tyrant to an alleged sexual predator. In the aftermath of the 2022 elections, a new moniker may sound his death knell– a loser. He lost in 2020, as did his party. With inflation running high in a midterm election, he led his party to vastly underperform. Many Republicans are now advocating ditching him but no plan has emerged as to how to do so given Trump has a loyal base in the party.


The first step Republicans should take to distance themselves from Trump is to back the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which outlines roughly a dozen ideas to reduce the ability of future presidents to weaken democratic institutions through the abuse of power. Doing so would provide cover to Republican politicians still hesitant to publicly repudiate Trump because the act supports executive reform that would apply to all future presidents, irrespective of party.

The draft legislation would strengthen the prohibition against emoluments, require disclosure to the F.B.I. of any offers by foreign entities to U.S. political campaigns, fortify whistle-blower protections, limit the president's pardon power in self-dealing circumstances, require tax returns to be disclosed by presidents, and accelerate the enforcement of congressional subpoenas, among other provisions.

The bill already passed the House of Representatives on December 9, 2021. Yet with the upcoming 118th Congress, it will have to be reintroduced in both chambers.

Republicans claim that inconsistent communication by Democrats on why they support PODA lead Republicans to swear off any bipartisan executive reform effort. Some Democrats stated that the Protecting Our Democracy Act was a needed response to Trump's reckless actions in power, similar to the ethics reforms that followed Nixon's tenure. Other Democrats stressed that it couldn't apply to the past but would be forward facing.

Of course, PODA is in response to President Trump, but it is also unequivocally a rejoinder to questionable actions by many past presidents. Former President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, whose spouse had earlier donated close to a half million dollars to his foundation.

Yet liberal politicians are less threatened by Trump after his growing list of electoral losses. This was apparent even before the midterms when Democrats boosted MAGA Republicans in many primaries, viewing them as weaker opponents than non-election denying Republicans. Many Democrats have moved on from fearing Trump, to potentially privately wanting him to run in 2024 to boost Democratic chances, not just to retain the presidency but also to control Congress. This Democratic shift welcoming Trump because of his unelectability provides an opening for Republicans to no longer stonewall PODA.

It is likely that numerous Republicans are beginning to see the same, or at least speak more freely about what they have understood for some time–that Trump is weighing them down. This Republican shift–desiring to move beyond him for the same reason Democrats want him to run–provides another opportunity for Republicans to help themselves by backing PODA passage.

Even before the midterms, ten Republican Senators agreed to co-sponsor the Electoral Count Reform Act, which like PODA, equally applies to all future presidents. They provided their support for the Electoral Count Reform Act because they understood they could either support the needed reform as an uneventful bureaucratic bill now or potentially have to face down Trump again if he lost the 2024 election but refused to concede.

Getting the Protecting Our Democracy Act through Congress is possible given that many of its provisions were initially championed by Republicans. For example, Republican Senator Mike Lee from Utah previously introduced legislation limiting the emergency powers of the president, which tracks with related PODA provisions that would end many such declarations quickly without Congressional extensions.

Individual parts of the Protecting Our Democracy Act can easily be supported while others discarded. For example, modest provisions already passed on March 11, 2022 by being tucked into the omnibus spending bill. Republicans can use this modular approach to PODA to refuse to back any parts they dislike, yet it is hard to see what Republicans might not like in the act. Do they really not want the ability to better enforce Congressional subpoenas, a provision in PODA, given their desire to question Hunter Biden?

This highlights the fact that by supporting PODA, Republicans can put pressure on Biden. The current administration has provided modest support to executive reform in general but, from the start, opposed numerous draft provisions. Any use of his veto in this area would taint Biden's standing, while his signature on PODA would, appropriately, constrain his scope of action.

Republicans who no longer view Trump as beneficial to their careers understand that a gradual public shift away from Trump is strategic. The Protecting Our Democracy Act is a gift. They are seasoned enough to spin it however they'd like–fealty to the Constitution, which it is, or enabling better oversight of all presidents going forward, which will always be needed. There are few saints and fewer presidents; the chances of overlap are low.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less