Democrats, The Government Shutdown, and the Trolley Problem

 On Sunday, November 9th, the US Senate voted 60 to 40 to pass a continuing resolution to reopen the US government, which had been closed for 40 days.  Seven moderate Democrats and one Independent joined Republicans in passing the resolution, to reach the required supermajority of 60 votes to invoke cloture and force a vote on the bill.  The resolution did not contain Democrats’ single, key demand, which was a continuation of the expanded ACA healthcare insurance subsidies for people making more than 4x the poverty level.  The expansion of ACA subsidies was enacted in 2021 as part of Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act, post-covid economic stimulus package.

When the Senate passed the continuing resolution to end the record-breaking government shutdown, Democrats across the country were outraged.  Social media exploded with withering criticism of the Senators who agreed to end the shutdown.  House Democrats, celebrities, late-night hosts and rank & file Democrats almost universally condemned the Senators for “caving” on the confrontation.  

I disagree.  From the outset, I thought that the government shutdown was ill-considered and counter-productive, likely to lead to worse outcomes than doing nothing.  I already published a post on the topic on April 14, 2025, when a government shutdown was proposed in the spring.  

For Democrats, the government shutdown was a trolley problem.  On one track were the people receiving expanded ACA subsidies, and on the other track were the people on food stamps, federal workers, citizens and business using air travel, and other government services of benefit to society.  Democrats threw the trolley switch to try to protect people on ACA subsidies, but threatening people on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), federal employees and other Americans.  Democrats believed, wrongly, that Republicans would compromise to restore reliable air traffic, or feel a sense of responsibility to SNAP recipients and throw the switch back.

By early November, the long-term consequences of the shutdown were becoming apparent.  Approximately 3 million federal workers had not been paid for a month.  Federal services, programs, grants and data-collection were all suspended.  In particular, SNAP was suspended, with the immediate prospect that 42 million people dependent on food stamps would be without sufficient food.  And unpaid air-traffic controllers were showing their irritation by creating flight delays, causing the FAA to preemptively cancel thousands of flights, culminating in the cancellation of nearly 3000 flights on November 9th.

Democrats saw this chaos as evidence that Republicans would soon compromise on ACA subsidies.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Republicans had absolutely no intention of giving Democrats a legislative win.  If Democrats gave just a moment’s consideration into Republicans’ options, they would have realized that the Trump administration would treat the government shutdown as an opportunity to expand authoritarian control and accelerate the dismantling of functioning government, and above all, to deny Democrats a legislative victory.  

The path forward for Republicans was clear.  First, the Trump administration would have let the shutdown persist until holiday flight travel was hopelessly snarled, and food stamp recipients were suffering malnutrition by the millions.  Then, Trump would militarize air traffic control, declaring all civilian air traffic controllers military inductees.  This would solve the air traffic crisis, and give Trump unprecedented power over private-sector air transportation.  After the chaos and uncertainty of thousands of flight cancellations, restoration of confidence in air travel would be welcomed by the traveling public.  Next, Trump would declare that Congress was derelict in its duties to provide a budget, and issue an emergency order to the Treasury to fund the military and other Republican priorities (but not food stamps).  This would be counter to Constitutional processes, but it is doubtful that the Supreme Court would rule against Trump in an extended crisis.  Third, eventually, he would convince the Republican Senate to end the filibuster, and pass a flurry of voter suppression bills, to ensure that Democrats did not win elections in 2026 or 2028.  

I’m a chess player.  In a situation of conflict, I put myself in my opponent’s shoes, and think about what my opponent is likely to do in response to my actions.  Democrats failed to do that before beginning the government shut-down.  Even a moment’s reflection from the Republican perspective would show that there was no chance in hell that Republicans would compromise with Democrats on the ACA subsidies.  Further, there was no chance that Republicans would responsibly protect SNAP recipients from the Democratic diversion of the trolley onto the track for people on food stamps.  Republicans hate social welfare programs and would celebrate the opportunity to shut down the food stamp program.  From the outset, it was apparent that the shutdown would harm marginalized people – the very people that Democrats claim to defend.

In the end, the legislation passed included a continuing resolution to fund the government at current levels through January 30, 2026.  Three appropriations bills were also passed, funding various agencies through September 30th, 2026, the end of the standard fiscal year.   SNAP benefits were among the appropriations funded through September.  Federal employees will receive back-pay, and mass firings will be reversed.  This action leaves nine more appropriations bills to be negotiated and passed by January 30th.  

The approved bill also included a provision allowing a number of Republican Senators to sue the Justice Department for invasion of privacy, in regard to the FBI investigation into the well-documented attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.  Each Senator who was investigated could receive up to $500,000 and compensation for legal fees.  This provision is controversial, even among Republicans, and House Speaker Johnson has promised a vote next week to repeal that provision.  But repeal would require another supermajority vote in the Senate and President Trump’s signature, so the repeal vote in the House is just political theater.

I think the shutdown, and the Democratic response to the shutdown, shows that today’s Democratic party has lost its heart, its soul and its collective mind in panic over Trump’s authoritarianism.  I am most disappointed that the Democratic party has completely lost sight of caring for the needs of people.  Today’s Democratic party is willing to harm people for an unrealistic hope of political gain.  Dems were foolish regarding their chances of success, and heartless in their decision on the trolley problem.  Republicans were absolutely never going to compromise on ACA, so the trolley would hit both sets of victims.

Republicans decisively won the elections in 2024, at all levels.  At this time, Democrats simply do not have the votes for constitutional resistance, and un-constitutional resistance would take the country into uncharted territory.  Democrats need to realize that when there's chaos in society, before long, citizens will be happy for an authoritarian to step in and end the chaos.  That's the real hazard of a protracted shut-down.  It would have been an opportunity for Trump to expand authoritarian control, to dismantle more of the federal government and for Republicans to put in place mechanisms to ensure permanent one-party rule.  I'm glad the eight Democratic and Independent Senators voted to restore funding.  These Senators saved the nation from a progressive disaster.

Without question, American democracy is threatened by Trumpian authoritarianism.  But we have to be smarter about the kind of resistance to Trump.  Our bulwark is the Constitution, our institutions, and our long history as a representative democracy.  We will have elections in another year, if Democrats do not provide justification for cancelling those elections.  There will be bitter fights over the mid-cycle gerrymandering, but we will still have elections.  The public can be fooled for a while, but not for long.   We will have an election for a new president in 2028, and the public will render judgment on Trump and his legacy.  I am confident that we will begin rebuilding in 2029, and build a stronger nation, based upon the values of governmental responsibility, truth, and care for our citizens.
---------
Appendix
Background for the 2025 Government Shutdown.
On October 31,, 2025, the US Federal government shut down due to a failure of Congress to pass a budget or continuing resolution to fund the government.  Republicans, with a narrow majority in both chambers, had constructed their proposed 2026 budget with no input from Democrats.  The Democrats demanded a single item to support the Republican budget – the extension of a health-insurance subsidy tied to the Affordable Care Act.  The insurance subsidy was included for low-income families in the original ACA legislation of 2010.  In 2021, a Democratically-controlled Congress expanded those subsidies, to include families making more the 4x the minimum wage.  The expanded subsidy was scheduled to expire in November 2025.  According to Google, 22 million people use the expanded subsidy to lower their insurance costs.  Online sources cast some doubt on that number, suggesting that the real number is about 11 million people.  There may be some confusion between the people receiving any ACA subsidies, and the people with relatively higher income receiving the expanded subsidy.  

On November 12, the House of Representatives passed the revised Continuing Resolution passed by the Senate, ending the eleventh government shutdown at a record 42 days. Democrats in the Senate had invoked the privilege of the filibuster to block passage of the bill for 40 days.  By Senate rules, a super-majority of 60 votes was necessary to end debate and force a vote on the bill.  Republicans had only 52 votes, with one Republican dissenter.  

By mid-November, the stakes in the conflict grew higher.  Air traffic controllers had not been paid in over a month, but were required to still work.  The controllers began slow-downs and walk-outs to put pressure on Congress to end the stalemate.  The FAA curtailed permitted flights, resulting in cancellations ranging from 1000 flights to 3000 flights per day.  Three million federal employees are not receiving paychecks.  And most importantly, 42 million Americans who receive SNAP (food stamp) benefits have stopped receiving benefits as of the beginning of the month.  There were legal battles about whether states can step in to temporarily fund the program, whether available funding should be used until depleted, and whether the federal government is permitted to make partial payments with available funds.  

The deal with Republicans funds the government through the end of January, 2026, and funding for some agencies through September, 2026.  The deal will reverse firings of federal employees during the shutdown, provide back-pay for federal employees, and fully fund SNAP through September 2026.
----
The image in this post was generated by a free on-line AI program.
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_government_shutdown#Affordable_Care_Act_subsidies

https://cei.org/blog/obamacares-subsidy-cliff-how-many-enrollees-are-actually-affected/

The 3.5% Rule and Democracy

The 3.5% Rule
As protests against the Trump administration grow, I’ve seen frequent references to the “3.5% rule” in posts about the protests.  The 3.5% rule was articulated by political scientist Erica Chenoweth in 2013.  Chenoweth reviewed hundreds of civil disturbances over the past 125 years, and showed that most governments could be overthrown when 3.5% of the population was mobilized in non-violent opposition protests (“peak events” in Chenoweth’s words).  The statistics from her 2020 paper show that the chance of success is a gradual function with the mobilized percentage of population, as seen in the following chart.
Dr. Chenoweth wrote that a movement which mobilizes 3.5% of a population probably has majority public support, but provided no evidence to support this claim.

Left-leaning organizations have widely touted the 3.5% rule as a means of achieving governmental policy changes such as climate action.  Both Dr. Chenoweth and climate activist Kyle Matthews caution against using the 3.5% rule in that way.  The uprisings studied by Dr. Chenoweth tried to achieve one of two goals: either to overthrow an authoritarian government, or to achieve territorial independence.  Advocacy for policy change was not within the scope of the study.

So, what are anti-Trump activists mobilizing protests against the administration trying to achieve, and how?   “Stop Trump” makes a handy sign to wave at a street demonstration, but is less clear in terms of Constitutional actions.  Given Republican control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, a subservient cabinet and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court, stopping Trump’s policy objectives seems far-fetched.  Impeaching Trump to inaugurate vice-president Vance as president is more unlikely, and also counterproductive toward liberal goals.  Are they hoping to overthrow the Trump administration through popular revolt?  That would also mean overthrowing the Constitution of the United States.  In the ensuing chaos, we would be more likely to fall into autocracy, not less likely.  Recall that the result of the French revolution was not a a democratic government, but guillotines and Napoleon.  

Trump clearly won the 2024 election (despite lying incessantly about the result of the 2020 election).  Numerous political analyses of the vote show a rightward shift in all 50 states, at all levels of jurisdiction.  Polling at the time of the election (and still) showed weakening support for Democrats relative to 2020.  One analysis showed that about 7 million voters who voted for Joe Biden did not vote for Kamala Harris.  Anecdotally, some voters were angry about Gaza, some were discouraged about inflation, some voters didn’t like the process of Harris’ nomination, and some simply didn’t trust Harris.  Overall, Trump clearly won.  

The entire question of trying to hound Donald Trump out of office begs the question, “What about democracy?”  Donald Trump won the majority of electoral college votes and the popular vote.  Voters chose this president and chose Republicans to dominate both chambers of Congress.  According to our Constitution, Republican voters have the right to see the results of their choice (and deserve those results).   It is the Republicans’ turn at bat, and progressives simply do not have the constitutional authority to overturn the government because they don’t like those policies.  

The word “unprecedented” can be used to describe many of the actions of the 2025 Trump administration.  Trump has issued 145 executive orders to date, far more than any other presidency.  He embarked on a program to remake the federal government and American society, using tactics that are bullying, coercive, grifting, and often illegal and immoral.  Actions of the administration that are illegal should be challenged in court.  Actions of the administration that are immoral should be challenged in letters to representatives, newspapers, social media posts and protests.  There are actions which are economically damaging, and those should be discussed at the kitchen table and barbershop, and in more letters to congressional representatives.  But other things, including radical downsizing of government, imposing tariffs on trade, cruelly repressing immigrants for trivial offenses, shifting government responsibilities and costs to the states, reducing government support for climate science, reducing aid to poor people and lowering taxes for the wealthy –  are not explicitly illegal, and cannot be readily stopped under the constitution.  Some of these actions, such as tariffs and taxation, require the cooperation from the Republican majority in Congress, which has been willing given to the President, at least so far.  Actions which are constitutionally permitted to the president provide no grounds for replacing this administration.  

Insurrection Act
The Insurrection Act contains the authority of the President to declare martial law and deploy the military against American citizens.  This could represent a stepping stone to the full assumption of authoritarian powers through suppression of opposition institutions and individuals.  Section 332 of the act reads as follows:

10 U.S.C. §§ 331-335
Sec. 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

Activists attempting to use the 3.5% rule to overturn the presidency of Donald Trump are probably guilty of sedition and insurrection, both federal felonies.  Attempting to overthrow the elected government of the United States by unlawful assemblages is, by definition, an insurrection.  

Note that “unlawful obstructions” are the first item justifying the President’s authority to implement the Insurrection Act.  Protest marches without permits, or blocking bridges and other means of public transport would be sufficient cause to deploy military force against protesters and suspend civil rights.  Note that invoking the Insurrection Act is solely a matter of Presidential discretion.  No act of Congress is required, and restraint from the courts is limited to a reasonable interpretation of the powers granted under the Act.  

While the First Amendment grants the right of peaceful assembly, it does not grant the right to unlawful assembly.  Some activists, working under John Lewis’ principle of “good trouble” advocate peaceful but unlawful obstruction as a tactic for achieving social change.  Those tactics succeeded in producing positive change during the Civil Rights era.  But activists need to understand that under an unscrupulous administration, “good trouble” may provide the pretext for the imposition of martial law and the loss of American democracy.

The best way to prevent Trump from invoking the Insurrection Act is to not commit an insurrection.  

A common sign at protest marches reads: “This is what democracy looks like!”  There is a song and a documentary about protests titled, “This is what democracy looks like”.  
I say to the contrary; the image to the right shows what democracy looks like.

Conclusion
Donald Trump and Republicans won the 2024 elections.  They have the constitutional right to exercise control over the powers of government, to set policies and execute their agenda.  Democrats have relatively little constitutional power to obstruct that agenda.  Further, obstructing Republicans’ agenda runs the risk of obscuring the cause of economic declines resulting from Republican policy.  It is essential that voters see and experience the consequences of Republican policies to have better-informed votes in the future.

Attempts to overthrow the Trump administration through protests and obstruction are illegal according to the Insurrection Act.  The acts of resistance are unlikely to achieve any gains in power, and will justify deployment of the military against US citizens, and the imposition of martial law.  That would be a major step toward authoritarian rule.  If progressives were somehow able to unseat the Trump administration, activists should be realistic in their expectations about what would happen next.  MAGA is certainly not going to accept the replacement of the Trump administration calmly.  Any mob-driven political change would be met with an even stronger, armed, counter-revolt.  The simple term for that outcome would be civil war.  

Make no mistake, I'm almost physically nauseated by the actions of the Trump administration.  I'm nauseated by Trump's attacks on immigrants, on free speech, on the freedom of the press, on due process for the accused, on the role of government in society, on the independence of the courts, on the independence of legal and economic federal agencies, on higher education, on climate science and health science, on LGBTQ+ rights, on government humanitarian action, on global support for democracy, especially in Ukraine, on truth itself, and on and on.  I’m absolutely nauseated.  But finding the right path for a just and lasting rejection of the MAGA movement is critical.  We have to think and act carefully, and make sure we preserve democracy even as we reject Trump and his followers.  

There are activists and political observers who accurately understand the authoritarian nature of the Trump administration.  They draw parallels between actions of the Trump administration and the rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany, and use these fears to justify insurrection.  They are incorrect.  The United States in 2025 is not Germany in the 1930s, and fear does not justify insurrection.  Our country has over two centuries of successful elections, we have federal checks and balances on executive power, and we have power over election processes held by the states.  Barring some ill-considered, counter-productive disruptions by the opposition to Trump, we will have a generally free and fair election in 2026, and another in 2028.  If Democrats create significant disruption to society, it will justify the consolidation of authoritarian power.  Further, voters will blame Democrats for the dysfunction and continue to elect Republicans.  
 
Democrats are seeing the consequences of losing the 2024 elections, and need to address the weaknesses in public opinion that led to that loss.  Voters, for their own reasons, chose Republicans in 2024, across the board.  For fair elections in 2026 and 2028, voters need to experience the impact of those Republican policies without Democratic interference.

There is no shortcut to undoing the election of Trump and Republican majorities in the US House and Senate.  We cannot constitutionally reverse the election of 2024 until our next elections in 2026 and 2028.  

References
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world, David Robson, BBC, 2019.
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Erica%20Chenoweth_2020-005.pdf
Questions, Answers, and Some Cautionary Updates Regarding the 3.5% Rule, Erica Chenoweth, Harvard Kennedy School, 2020.

https://commonslibrary.org/social-movements-and-the-misuse-of-research-extinction-rebellion-and-the-3-5-rule/
Social Movements and the (mis)use of Research: Extinction Rebellion and the 3.5% rule, Kyle R Matthews, 2020
“I therefore argue that XR is misusing research by applying it to a context that it does not relate to. This misuse has informed XR’s strategy of mass mobilisation and disruptive actions, and led it away from alternative strategies that may be more useful.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/06/25/735536434/the-magic-number-behind-protests
The Magic Number Behind Protests, Darien Woods, 2019.

https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/documents/hdasa/references/insurrection_act.pdf
Insurrection Act

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265871/
This Is What Democracy Looks Like, A filmed account of the street protests against the World Trade Organization Summit in Seattle, Washington, USA in 1999, 2000.
https://joshblake.bandcamp.com/track/this-is-what-democracy-looks-like, song, Josh Blake.

https://deceleration.news/trump-insurrection-act-what-you-need-to-know/
Trump and the Insurrection Act: What You Need to Know Right Now, Daniel Hunter, April 2025.
Quotes:
“While Project 2025 is a roadmap, I’m less convinced of their ability to plan long-term.”
“Trump’s desire to criminalize protests against him is obvious….
It therefore appears that Trump would relish the opportunity to use the Insurrection Act more broadly against opponents. If the first move is somewhat limited in scope — e.g. the border and ICE enforcement — he will look for a violent spark that he can claim as pretext to expand the scope more widely.
Violence at protests would be the quickest way for him to get there.”
“If his opponents don’t hand it to him, prepare for him to egg on already twitchy counter-protesters or use agent provocateurs. Violence in the streets feeds Trump’s strongman image.
This is consistent with the authoritarian playbook.
Authoritarians love some violence in the street. It allows them to swoop in with crackdowns they claim will protect the population from criminals.”
“If they can’t bait the movement into violence, then they’ll almost certainly instigate it.”