Democrats woke up furious the morning after some sought to bring the fight to President Trump during his address Tuesday to a joint session Congress, arguing their protests had backfired and underscored why their party lost November’s election in the first place.
“We never learn,” one Democratic strategist said flatly, feeling deflated by the Democrats’ response.
“We can’t just be the party that barks at Trump, and I’m sorry, but that’s what we are. And until we learn that lesson, we’re going to lose.”
Another strategist was also miffed by the scene that unfolded.
“He owned us,” the strategist said. “He made us look like what we are: f‑‑‑ing buffoons.”
Democrats have been trying to figure out how best to respond to Trump since their November loss, particularly as he aims to reconfigure the federal government. Initially, many in the party said they did not want to repeat their “resistance” strategy during Trump’s first term.
But resistance was on full display during Trump’s marathon speech Tuesday night in the House chamber, where a host of liberal Democrats conducted a variety of protests to highlight their opposition to a president they deem a threat to the country. Some held up signs in support of Medicaid and opposing Elon Musk. Others stood to display “resist” messages on their shirts, then walked silently out of the chamber.
Most remarkably, Rep. Al Green, a 77-year-old Texas Democrat, stood up just minutes into Trump’s speech and heckled the president, his cane waving toward the lectern. When Green ignored entreaties from the House Speaker to “take your seat,” he was ejected from the chamber.
The demonstrations have energized many liberals in the Democrats’ base — a group that’s accused party leaders of being too tepid in the face of Trump’s early blitz of executive actions. But they’ve also infuriated more moderate Democrats on and off Capitol Hill, who fear the headline-churning protests diverted attention away from the controversial policy agenda Trump was trumpeting from the dais.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) characterized the protests as “a sad cavalcade of self owns and unhinged petulance.”
“It only makes Trump look more presidential and restrained,” he wrote Wednesday on X.
A third strategist suggested the protest strategy simply didn’t fit the challenge of taking on an unorthodox president, framing it as “a normal playbook for an abnormal time.”
“Democrats must think out of the box in the age of Trump,” the strategist said. “While their legislation options to stop Trump are limited, Democrats can do so much more to shape the public narrative and combat Trump’s avalanche of lies and misinformation.”
The protests, particularly the defiant stand by Green, were precisely the type of thing Democratic leaders had sought to discourage in the days before Trump’s address.
Heading into Tuesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) had advised Democratic lawmakers to approach the speech in the way that best fit the sentiments of their districts. For some, that meant boycotting the event. For most others, it meant attending, out of a respect for the tradition, but sitting silently to protest Trump’s message.
Yet Democratic leaders had also cautioned lawmakers not to make waves during the speech, out of concern that the protests would overshadow the content of Trump’s words. In a letter to his troops Monday, Jeffries advocated the importance of having “a strong, determined and dignified Democratic presence in the chamber.”
Other lawmakers interpreted his message plainly: Don’t make it about you.
Green’s protest defied that advice and created a dilemma for Democratic leaders, who have a long history of criticizing Republicans for outbursts during State of the Union speeches delivered by Democratic presidents.
On Wednesday, Jeffries defended the conduct of the “majority” of his caucus during Trump’s speech but declined to weigh in on the smaller group that had protested.
“[An] overwhelming majority of House Democrats approached the speech with the seriousness that it deserved on behalf of the American people,” Jeffries said.
Still, Democratic leaders were clearly frustrated that the protests had stolen some of the headlines from Trump’s speech. And they fought Wednesday to bring the focus back to the central designs of the president’s policy agenda, not least the cost-slashing efforts of Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency.
Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip, acknowledged decorum “is important.” But she was incredulous that Republicans could be outraged over demonstrations opposing cuts to Medicaid, education and medical research, but not over the cuts themselves.
“[Trump] has come in with an unelected — richest man on Earth — and taken a chainsaw to everything we care about. … It is a betrayal,” Clark said.
“So let’s not talk about decorum when the plot is exposed and reiterated every single day,” she continued. “You take people’s health care, you take our veterans’ benefits, you take funding from our public schools. And you do it all — all of it — to give a tax cut to the very wealthiest people who won’t even notice it, but whose greed knows no bounds.”
While Democrats are fighting to move beyond the controversy surrounding Tuesday’s protests, Republicans are hoping to stretch it out as long as possible.
By the time Trump’s speech had ended late Tuesday night, a host of Republicans — including members of the conservative Freedom Caucus — were vowing to push resolutions to censure Green for disrupting the event. And Wednesday, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) introduced such a bill, which accuses Green of “a breach of proper conduct.”
The House is expected to vote on the measure Thursday. Green, though, says the discipline is a small price to pay for the message he sent.
“It’s worth it to let people know that there are some people who are going to stand up [to Trump],” Green said.
