Democracy Upside Down
Last month, President Donald Trump's administration scrapped a long-standing Texas law that provided access to financial aid for 'Dreamers'—undocumented immigrants, brought into this country as children, who grew up here, graduated from local high schools, and are committed to becoming permanent residents. The administration's allies tried and failed to persuade the state legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, to repeal the law, which has had nearly a quarter century of bipartisan support. So the administration made an end run around Texas's democratic process: The Department of Justice hatched a plan with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to kill the law, filing a joint motion that asked a federal court to declare the Texas Dream Act unconstitutional. A judge approved the motion the very same day. The whole process took just six hours. Whatever one's views are on Dreamer policy, the fact is that this maneuver went against the will of the people of Texas.
The organization I lead, Democracy Forward, has, along with several other groups, filed a motion to defend the law. Texans deserve to have the constitutionality of their Dream Act judged in court, not killed off via a collaboration between the president and the state attorney general. And even more alarming than the Trump administration's dismantling of this law is that it's part of a broader effort to short-circuit democracy at the state level.
State-level democracy is essential to America's federalist system. During another time in U.S. history when a majority of the Supreme Court was imposing barriers to the public's ability to self-govern, Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously observed, 'It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' Later, Justice William Brennan argued that states have the 'power to impose higher standards' under state law 'than is required under the Federal Constitution.' Throughout America's long history, state-level innovations have pushed the country forward: Some states abolished slavery long before the Civil War, granted women the right to vote before the Nineteenth Amendment was adopted, and legalized marriage equality years before the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.
Of course, states have not always been on the side of human freedom and progress. Appeals to 'states' rights' have served as rallying cries for enslavers, segregationists, and others seeking to deny the rights of people and communities since the nation's founding. 'No state,' the Fourteenth Amendment proclaimed after the Civil War, shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' When America's system of government works as it should, the federal government steps in to prevent states from undermining human freedom.
[David Frum: The courts won't save democracy from Trump]
That's what America saw in 1957, when President Dwight Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to implement a Supreme Court ruling to desegregate schools; the governor, an avowed segregationist, had refused to comply. President John F. Kennedy similarly federalized the Alabama National Guard to carry out desegregation orders at the University of Alabama, again over the objection of a pro-segregation governor.
Now the president and his political appointees, not a state's governor, are ignoring federal-court orders. In April, a federal court found that the government had exhibited 'a willful disregard for its Order' that planes carrying migrants who had been denied basic due process be turned around until the court could hear the migrants' case. (Democracy Forward and the ACLU represent the migrants in that matter.) Two months later, in early June, Trump federalized the California National Guard and deployed active-duty Marines to Los Angeles without the approval of Governor Gavin Newsom, who argued that local law enforcement was fully capable of managing anti-ICE protests. Trump's move was a federal flex that made a mockery of state sovereignty and democracy, and created more chaos than it solved. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said that what she saw in a local park 'looked like a city under siege, under armed occupation.'
To justify its actions in California, the administration invoked Eisenhower's 1957 move to enforce federal-court orders on civil rights. Yet Trump's actions aim for the opposite of Eisenhower's. Instead of using federal power to protect people's rights, Trump is misusing federal power to undermine them. That is democracy upside down.
Similarly, when Maine insisted that it would defend transgender athletes' participation on women's college-sports teams, the president brazenly interfered. Maine was following the law as it argued was set forth in Title IX and the state's Human Rights Act, but Trump sought to force a new interpretation of the federal law through executive actions, including a February order. That month, Trump pronounced, 'We are the federal law,' at which point the administration began a process to cut off funding to Maine's public-school meal programs as punishment—funds appropriated by Congress to help children in need. 'See you in court,' Maine Governor Janet Mills told the president. She did, and Maine won.
The administration has also attempted to usurp the power that the Constitution provides both Congress and the states. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution mandates that only states and Congress can make or alter the 'times, places, and manner' of holding federal elections. Ignoring that, Trump, in an executive order, has sought to impose federal time, place, and manner requirements that create barriers to the ballot box. Much of this executive order has been blocked by two federal courts in response to litigation filed by 19 states, among other parties. One federal judge found that the requirements Trump is seeking to impose would create time-consuming burdens on states and could chill voter participation— 'the antithesis of Congress's purpose in enacting' federal election laws. (The Trump administration is also pressuring Texas Republicans to redraw congressional districts in the middle of the decade, outside the normal cycle, to skew the midterm elections.)
[Adam Serwer: Trump is wearing America down]
The Trump administration has called lawsuits filed against its actions 'frivolous' and 'vexatious.' But as with so many of Trump's attacks, this is really a confession. The Texas ploy is just one of many ways the administration is undercutting the checks and balances in the U.S. constitutional system. The administration has eviscerated agencies and programs created by Congress, attacked judges and the legal profession as a whole, and attempted to stifle a free and open press through intimidation tactics. It's all in keeping with a theme: To empower one man, you need to disempower everyone else, everywhere else—including in states where laws are counter to the president's political agenda.
What's happening in Texas, California, Maine, and other states goes beyond normal political disagreements or turf spats. This isn't the typical tug-of-war of federalism. The Trump administration is undermining foundational democratic principles and turning what are supposed to be 'laboratories of democracy' into laboratories of repression—something that should have no place in a nation founded on the promise of human freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
Psychologists predicted Trump's 2024 win before a single vote was cast — here's how they did it
Psychologists pulled off what political pundits and polls failed to do: predict the 2024 presidential election winner. Before a single ballot was cast in 2024, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania say they already predicted Donald Trump as the winner by tracking how optimistically each candidate explained bad news. While Trump's tone grew increasingly upbeat in the final weeks of the campaign, Kamala Harris's stayed flat. That shift correctly forecast not just that Trump would win, but by how much, according to a new study from Penn's Positive Psychology Center. 4 Trump's 2024 win was predicted weeks before the election by UPenn psychologists who tracked his rising optimism — a shift that set him apart from Kamala Harris, according to a new study. The Washington Post via Getty Images 'Starting around October 10 or so, Trump started to get significantly more optimistic,' Martin Seligman, the study's co-author and a professor of psychology at Penn, told The Post. 'By the 27th, it was a very large difference between Harris and Trump.' The team analyzed 1,389 explanations of negative events — such as war, crime, or economic hardship — from both candidates. Their dataset drew from speeches, interviews, and their only presidential debate, all delivered between early September and October 27. Each explanation was scored using the CAVE method, or Content Analysis of Verbatim Explanations, a positive psychology technique that analyzes how people explain events in speech or writing. Researchers used it to measure optimism by assessing whether causes were described as temporary, specific, and fixable. The narrower and solvable the cause, the more 'optimistic' the candidate's message. 4 Kamala Harris and Donald Trump spoke during a presidential debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 10, 2024. AFP via Getty Images Trump referenced more than 1,000 negative issues or events — over four times the number cited by Harris — often blaming outside forces while insisting the problems were fixable, usually by himself, the study found. Harris, by contrast, described deep, lasting threats with little sense of resolution, Seligman said. To see whether any other speech patterns could have predicted the results, the researchers also looked at emotional tone, focus on past vs. future and language about control or responsibility. None of them tracked with the outcome. Optimism stood alone. Seligman's earlier research found that more optimism predicted the winner in 9 out of the 10 elections between 1948 and 1984. 4 Before a single ballot was cast in 2024, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania say they already predicted Donald Trump as the winner by tracking how optimistically each candidate explained bad news. AFP via Getty Images After that, he advised both political parties on using optimism in their campaigns. But when candidates began scripting fake optimism, he shelved the method. He only revived it this cycle because Trump's off-the-cuff style allowed for real-time analysis. The researchers encrypted their prediction before Election Day and shared it with four outside verifiers, including Wall Street Journal reporters Lara Seligman — daughter of Martin Seligman — and Al Hunt, University of Washington political scientist Dan Chirot, and Hope College psychologist Dave Myers, before publishing the results after the race. 4 'Starting around October 10 or so, Trump started to get significantly more optimistic,' Martin Seligman, the study's co-author and a professor of psychology at Penn, told The Post. 'By the 27th, it was a very large difference between Harris and Trump.' Getty Images 'We're the only people who predicted a Trump election, as far as I know,' Seligman said. A separate forecasting model, based on economic conditions and presidential approval ratings, was developed by Cornell University professor Peter Enns and also correctly predicted Trump's win in all 50 states. The findings suggest voters respond more favorably to optimistic candidates who present problems as fixable rather than systemic — and that Trump's tendency to 'go off script' gave researchers an authentic glimpse of his true mindset, Seligman said. 'When optimism is genuine, I think there's a lot of reason to believe that the American public wants optimism and wants hope,' he said. 'It speaks to the general optimistic slant of American history.'


Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Disapproval Rating 'Stuck'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Donald Trump's approval rating is "stuck," according to a new poll. The survey, conducted by Quantus Insights between July 21 and 23 among 1,123 registered voters, showed that Trump's approval rating stands at 47 percent, while 50 percent disapprove. That is relatively unchanged from the previous poll conducted earlier this month, which put Trump's approval rating at 48 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. Every poll conducted by Quantus Insights since early April has put Trump's approval rating between 47 and 48 percent, while his disapproval rating has stayed between 48 and 50 percent. "For a president who thrives on momentum, the static nature of these numbers is a signal: the base is holding, but the middle isn't moving," Quantus pollster Jaon Corley wrote. The poll shows that the ceiling that is forming among Trump's supporters is being defined by sharp and widening demographic splits—by gender, race, education, and geography—that limit Trump's reach even as his base remains intensely loyal. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, July 25, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, July 25, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP But according to Democratic pollster Matt McDermott, this could be a problem for the Republican Party heading into the 2026 midterms. "You don't win elections by doubling down on your base while bleeding swing voters," he told Newsweek. A Firm Republican Backbone Among Republican voters, Trump remains overwhelmingly popular. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans approve of his performance, including 91 percent of white Republican men and 91 percent of white Republican women, virtually unchanged from the July 14—16 wave, when approval stood at 90 percent among Republicans overall. His approval is also strong among white noncollege voters (46 percent), rural residents (49 percent), and white men overall (56 percent), many of whom formed the backbone of his 2024 electoral coalition. In particular, rural white males give Trump 54 percent approval, with just 46 percent disapproving, reinforcing the president's solid hold on the white working-class male vote. Cracks Emerge Among Women and Younger Voters By contrast, Trump is struggling with key swing constituencies. Among women, his net approval is -10 points (43 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove), and the gender gap remains stark. While 52 percent of men approve of his job performance, just 43 percent of women do—a nine-point gap that has remained consistent since mid-July. Younger voters also continue to show deep dissatisfaction. Just 46 percent of voters aged 18—29 approve of Trump, with 51 percent disapproving, similar to the earlier July poll. Among women aged 18—29, approval is just 38 percent, while disapproval reaches 58 percent. But young men have a very different view of Trump. Among men aged 18—29, Trump hits 57 percent approval with a +17 net margin. As a result, Corley said that the notion that young voters broadly oppose Trump is outdated. "Trump's support is male-heavy, younger than expected, and hardening along gender lines. The idea that 'young voters oppose Trump' is outdated. True for women, increasingly false for men," Corley wrote. Independent Voters Slipping Away Meanwhile, the poll shows that as the 2026 midterms approach, Trump's support among independents is eroding. Just 38 percent of independents now approve of his performance, compared to 58 percent who disapprove—a stark 20-point deficit that has worsened since earlier in the month, when his net approval among independents stood at -17 percent. Notably, white independents, once a potential swing bloc for Trump, now disapprove of him by a 57 to 39 percent margin. Approval among nonwhite independents is even lower at 34 percent, with nearly two-thirds disapproving. Racial Gaps Widen Among Black voters, Trump posts 39 percent approval overall, with 50 percent of Black men backing him, a historic high for a Republican. But the poll also reveals a wide gender split, with just 30 percent of Black women backing him. But overall, Trump has seen a boost in support from Black voters, who broke for him 32 percent to 63 percent in the last poll. Among Hispanic voters, the divide is less pronounced. Trump draws 42 percent approval overall, with slightly higher ratings among Hispanic men (46 percent) than women (39 percent). His overall support from Hispanic voters is unchanged from mid-July. "The racial polarization that has long defined American politics is still in place but it's fraying at the edges, and in a country decided by razor-thin margins, the edges matter," Corley wrote. Trump's Approval Plateaus—But Cracks Are Growing Beneath the Surface Quantus' latest poll aligns closely with other recent national surveys, all of which suggest that Donald Trump's support has hit a ceiling, with his approval ratings stabilizing but showing little sign of growth. RMG Research, for example, currently has Trump at 50 percent approval and 48 percent disapproval—a nearly identical pattern to Quantus. Since late May, RMG has shown Trump's approval hovering between 50 and 52 percent, with disapproval consistently in the 46 to 48 percent range. This points to a remarkably steady public perception of the president, without major gains or losses. Emerson College Polling paints a similar picture. Their latest numbers place Trump at 46 percent approval and 47 percent disapproval. That net disapproval of +1 has been unchanged across their past three surveys, underscoring how locked-in public opinion has become. Fox News polling shows Trump at 46 percent approval and 54 percent disapproval—identical to their June findings. Despite shifts in the news cycle, these figures have shown no movement over the past month. The Trafalgar Group and Insider Advantage also register Trump at 50 percent approval and 48 percent disapproval in their most recent poll. Back in April, their numbers were 46 to 44, indicating that while Trump's approval has ticked up slightly and disapproval has edged down, the overall net approval has remained steady at +2. Meanwhile, the YouGov/Economist poll continues to show Trump underwater, with 41 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval. That's virtually unchanged from a month ago, reinforcing the broader narrative: Trump's support base is solid, but stagnant. But other polls have shown Trump's approval ratings dip to a second-term low nationwide. Newsweek's approval tracker currently places Trump at a net minus 7 rating, with 45 percent of Americans approving and 52 percent disapproving. It is one of his lowest net approval scores in recent weeks. The most recent Marquette University survey shows Trump at 45 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval, a net rating of -10, down two points from -8 in May. It is the lowest rating Marquette has recorded for Trump during his second term. Similarly, Navigator Research found his approval at 42 percent, with 54 percent disapproving, marking a net disapproval rating of +12—a four-point drop from June and also his worst rating from Navigator since returning to office. More dramatic declines appear in Gallup's latest polling, which shows Trump with just 37 percent approval and 58 percent disapproval—a net rating of -21, down from -17 last month. The Bullfinch Group also reports weakening support, with Trump now at 41 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval, a net rating of -14, down slightly from -13 in June.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Protests erupt as Trump visits Scotland
Demonstrations have broken out across Scotland as US President Donald Trump begins his private five-day visit. Hundreds of protesters gathered in Edinburgh to voice opposition to his presence in the country.