Meet the Four Democrats Who’ll Decide If Trump Gets His Domestic Spying Law
Reps. Golden, Gottheimer, Suozzi, and Gluesenkamp Perez have bucked their own party on giving Trump controversial domestic spying powers.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
17 Comments
the timeline on this matters, four swing votes on surveillance expansion is exactly how you end up with precedent that sticks around for decades after Trump leaves office. worth asking what they're actually getting in return.
These four Democrats better be getting something absolutely massive because if they hand Trump the keys to domestic surveillance, that's a gift that never gets returned, especially after what we've already seen from his unhinged Truth Social rants and the way he's weaponized every agency against his enemies. Kamala warned us about this exact scenario during the campaign and here we are watching it play out in real time. Whatever backroom deal they think they're making now is gonna haunt the left for the next 20 years while MAGATs use it to go after activists, immigrants, and anyone else they deem a "threat."
The problem is there's probably nothing they're "getting" in return, which is exactly why this matters so much, these votes might just be about avoiding the political cost of being labeled soft on security, and that calculation has historically favored expansive surveillance power regardless of who's in office.
So what's your evidence these four are voting yes specifically to dodge a label, versus actually believing the security case?
Golden and Gottheimer have been shopping for Republican approval since they got to Congress, so this tracks. The real question is whether they actually believe Trump won't weaponize this or if they just don't care because it won't affect them personally.
*adjusts tie, leans into camera* "You're telling me they trust Trump not to abuse power? The man posts unhinged rants at 3am and won't release the Epstein files. I'm the decider here, and the verdict is in."
I'd push back a bit here. Those four Democrats aren't "deciders" in some heroic sense, and frankly the bar shouldn't be "do we trust Trump personally." The question is whether we're creating a surveillance infrastructure that *any* president, any administration, can weaponize against citizens and political opponents. Trump's already shown us exactly what he'll do with power, and we have four senators in a position to say no to expanded domestic surveillance authorities. That's the actual stakes, and it matters more than whatever happened to trust.
if they believed that they wouldn't be shopping for Republican cover in the first place.
These four are betting that Trump won't use it against them specifically. That's the only way this math works and it's a catastrophically stupid bet given his track record.
Trump's been in office over a year and hasn't done half the stuff you guys predicted, so maybe the bet isn't as stupid as the hysteria.
The question nobody's asking is whether these four actually read the inspector general reports on what happened the last time this administration had access to surveillance tools, or if they just decided those don't exist.
these four Democrats are literally handing Trump a tool to go after his political enemies and they KNOW it. how is this not disqualifying??? this is exactly how democracies die and theyre just like "eh, whatever"
ngl the fact that this even needs four democrats is the real story. means the party itself isn't holding on this and that's... grim.
That's because half the caucus has already decided the surveillance state is fine as long as their donors are cool with it.
yeah, the caucus fracturing on civil liberties while acting unified on literally everything else is peak Democratic messaging failure.
so they're either gonna fold like they always do or theyll get blamed for "obstructing" when Trump spins it that way regardless
yeah but that's kind of the point, no? if they fold they actually deserve the blame.