Finding the Loyal Opposition
The bipartisan nucleus of a Loyal Opposition already exists
My last two columns on the need for a Loyal Opposition, not just a resistance, have generated many further questions. Let me tackle the biggest ones here.
People have asked for more detail on the Loyal Opposition. They have also asked: How do we get from here to there, from multidirectional energy to an effective opposition that consistently prosecutes an alternative governing agenda to that of President Trump?
First off, let’s focus on the core question. Precisely what would the Loyal Opposition stand for? Here’s my formulation: The Loyal Opposition should exist to protect people from arbitrary power. No president should be able to punish critics by pulling their security clearance. No president should be able to impose economy-wide tariffs without Congress saying yes. No official should be able to retaliate against a church, university, or newsroom for political reasons. No president should send federal agents into the streets of America’s cities with unchecked power and without the consent of state government.
The Loyal Opposition would exist to ensure that the strongest tools of modern government — economic coercion, security authority, and administrative power — are exercised only with transparent justification, institutional consent, and protections against political retaliation. Major decisions that reshape the economy, alliances, or civil liberties — tariffs, sanctions, war, emergency powers — must have affirmative congressional authorization. Markets, allies, civil servants, and citizens are strongest when government action is predictable, lawful, and accountable. These are the commitments of a Loyal Opposition. I’ve spelled them out at greater length in my recent essay, Venezuela and Common Sense.
The good news is that the bipartisan nucleus of a Loyal Opposition already exists in Congress.
In the Senate, 14 senators have joined “Congress-first” efforts — most visibly tariff-review legislation (S.1272), War Powers resolutions, and security-clearance integrity legislation (S.1959) — stemming from the instinct that if an action is big enough to move markets and alliances, it should begin in Congress under our Constitutional design. These bills seek to reclaim power over tariffs and war powers as well as to protect the integrity of security clearances. The senators are Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine).
In the House, the following members acted similarly during the past year: Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), Young Kim (R-Calif.), Laura Friedman (D-Calif.), Ed Case (D-Hawaii), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Sara Jacobs (D-Calif). Of course, two of them — Bacon and Taylor Greene — have left or are leaving Congress.
Members of Congress seeking to rebalance power through legislation provide a first layer for the Loyal Opposition. Through pressures here, Congress can work to restrain the executive.
Rights enforcement — through citizens and the courts — provides a second layer. Here, a good example is the work of Protect Democracy. As per a recent letter from their executive director, Ian Bassin, Protect Democracy helped develop a new bill called the No Political Enemies (NOPE) Act. It would create a private right of action and judicial accountability for institutions targeted by political retribution, including nonprofits and NGOs, faith communities, media outlets, and educational institutions. Instead of rebalancing power within government, this bill is designed to address — and check — arbitrary and personalized government power from outside the government, through private suits. Protect Democracy hopes to use the proposal as a tent pole around which to rally a coalition from sectors that have faced political targeting. Protect Democracy is also moving forward a state law to make it possible for people to sue federal officials if they violate the Constitution.
In a third layer of the Loyal Opposition, civil society mobilizes to defend pluralism and rebuild the legitimacy and public trust needed for sustained institutional reform. Nonprofit groups across the country — from Partners In Democracy to Issue One to FairVote to RepresentUS and many others — are working to develop coordinated federal reform packages on representation, anti-corruption, re-empowering Congress, and information governance. The work includes targeted and aligned state-level reforms, such as all-party primaries, ranked-choice voting, and campaign-finance reform models. It also includes sustained investments in civic education, adult civic learning, and everyday institutional connection as well as cross-sector alliances spanning media, faith communities, educational institutions, and nonprofits.
Just as in the first two layers, this renovation work also provides protection against retaliation, chaos, and arbitrary power. The civil society coalition for democracy renovation takes on the mission of fixing the rules so no one can abuse power again. Protecting people from arbitrary power means building a democracy that is representative, accountable, governable, and responsive to ordinary people.
The necessary pieces of a Loyal Opposition exist, in other words. They don’t have to be created. The next question is how the different layers can synergize their efforts and compound their impact, and how everyone else who wants to protect people from arbitrary power can pitch in. Send me your ideas!
Related reading:
One reason that the label "Loyal Opposition" is likely to be counterproductive is the very common association of the word "'loyal" with people who support Trump. It's unfortunate, but no less true, that there's a visceral reaction to the word "loyal" because of the way it has been abused to (inadvertently) elevate the people who support Trump. In truth, very many of them aren't loyal to anything but themselves. Very many are abusers or opportunists or fearful or some combination of the foregoing. Many others think of Trump as a (mostly) useful idiot.
If I were in Congress or running for Congress, I'd run from the label "loyal." Even as a citizen, I'm not enthusiastic about the thought of being labeled loyal in this way.
The principles you're addressing sound great, but the label isn't a good fit (as I explained today in my response to your essay The Loyal Opposition). The people who wrote and ratified our Constitution thought a lot about both principles and labels. They carefully chose particular words and particular powers of public servants. I respectfully submit that they would reject the label and essence of a loyal opposition to the party in power.
For good reason, in Article I they rejected the essence and the label of Parliament. They chose to empower "a Congress of the United States" and to emphasize that Congress had only the "legislative Powers" that were "granted" by the People in our Constitution.
In Article II, they repeatedly focused on executive officers "faithfully" fulfilling their duties. In general, the function of executive officers is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." "Before" any president "enter[s] on the Execution of his Office" for any term the People required him to "swear (or affirm)" that he "will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," and the People expressly emphasized such faithful execution means "to the best of" his "Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
In Article VI, they focused on "the supreme Law of the Land," and they emphasized that all legislators and all executive or judicial officers (federal and state) and all lawyers (state and federal) must "support" (be supporters of) our "Constitution."
The power of the Federalist Papers is due to much more than that they merely explain our Constitution. They were written to persuade people to ratify our Constitution, so they are like the crucial representations made at the outset of contracts. In part, Madison and Hamilton persuaded people to ratify our Constitution by repeatedly referring to particular people in power as "guardians" of the liberty of the People or "sentinels" watching and warning of those who might violate our Constitution and undermine our liberties.