Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

U.S. Capitol.
As government shutdowns drag on, a novel idea emerges: use arbitration to break congressional gridlock and fix America’s broken budget process.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Congress's productive 2025 (And don't let anyone tell you otherwise)

The media loves to tell you your government isn't working, even when it is. Don't let anyone tell you 2025 was an unproductive year for Congress. [Edit: To clarify, I don't mean the government is working for you.]

1,976 pages of new law

At 1,976 pages of new law enacted since President Trump took office, including an increase of the national debt limit by $4 trillion, any journalist telling you not much happened in Congress this year is sleeping on the job.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone using an AI chatbot on their phone.

AI-powered wellness tools promise care at work, but raise serious questions about consent, surveillance, and employee autonomy.

Getty Images, d3sign

Why Workplace Wellbeing AI Needs a New Ethics of Consent

Across the U.S. and globally, employers—including corporations, healthcare systems, universities, and nonprofits—are increasing investment in worker well-being. The global corporate wellness market reached $53.5 billion in sales in 2024, with North America leading adoption. Corporate wellness programs now use AI to monitor stress, track burnout risk, or recommend personalized interventions.

Vendors offering AI-enabled well-being platforms, chatbots, and stress-tracking tools are rapidly expanding. Chatbots such as Woebot and Wysa are increasingly integrated into workplace wellness programs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women holding signs to defend diversity at Havard

Harvard students joined in a rally protesting the Supreme Courts ruling against affirmative action in 2023.

Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Diversity Has Become a Dirty Word. It Doesn’t Have to Be.

I have an identical twin sister. Although our faces can unlock each other’s iPhones, even the two of us are not exactly the same. If identical twins can differ, wouldn’t most people be different too? Why is diversity considered a bad word?

Like me, my twin sister is in computing, yet we are unique in many ways. She works in industry, while I am in academia. She’s allergic to guinea pigs, while I had pet guinea pigs (yep, that’s how she found out). Even our voices aren’t the same. As a kid, I was definitely the chattier one, while she loved taking walks together in silence (which, of course, drove me crazy).

Keep ReadingShow less
The Domestic Sting: Why the Tariff Bill is Arriving at the American Door
photo of dollar coins and banknotes
Photo by Mathieu Turle on Unsplash

The Domestic Sting: Why the Tariff Bill is Arriving at the American Door

America's tariff experiment, now nearly a year old, is proving more painful than its architects anticipated. What began as a bold stroke to shield domestic industries and force concessions from trading partners has instead delivered a slow-burning rise in prices, complicating the Federal Reserve's battle against inflation. As the policy grinds on, economists warn that the real damage lies ahead, with consumers and businesses absorbing costs that erode purchasing power and economic momentum. This is not the quick victory promised but a protracted burden that risks entrenching higher prices just as the economy seeks stability.

The tariffs, rolled out in phases since early March 2025, have jacked up the average import duty from 2 percent to around 17 percent. Imported goods prices have climbed 4 percent since then, outpacing the 2 percent rise in domestic equivalents. Items like coffee, which the United States cannot produce at scale, have seen the sharpest hikes, alongside products from heavily penalized countries such as China. Retailers and importers, far from passing all costs abroad as hoped, have shouldered much of the load initially, limiting immediate sticker shock. Yet daily pricing data from major chains reveal a creeping pass-through: imported goods up 5 percent overall, domestic up 2.5 percent. Cautious sellers absorb some hit to avoid losing market share, but this restraint is fading as tariffs are embedded in supply chains.

Keep ReadingShow less