Week in Politics: Trump's housing bill protest fails; Trump and NATO; Maine's Democrats
President Trump refused to sign a housing bill, now law, in protest over Congress not passing new restrictions on voting.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
President Trump’s decision to withhold a law that would expand affordable housing in order to score political points on voting‑rights legislation is a stark reminder that his governing style still prioritizes theatrics over basic public needs. While the procedural debate over vetoes and riders will occupy scholars, ordinary Americans are left without the homes they desperately need, especially as inflation and high energy costs tighten household budgets. The broader issue is not the historical use of leverage in legislation but the fact that a sitting president is willing to jeopardize a concrete benefit for millions to push a partisan agenda. Holding the administration accountable for that choice is where our focus should remain.
He vetoed housing for Americans who can't afford housing because of the economy HE BUILT and somehow the political stunt is the secondary headline.
Tying a housing bill to voting restrictions is exactly the kind of leverage game that makes government look unserious. If you want to fight about voting rules, do it directly. Housing should not be collateral damage for a separate political stunt.
Agreed on the cynicism, but bill riders and poison pills are as old as Congress itself, both parties have used them constantly, so the "this makes government look unserious" framing is a little late by about two centuries. The specific problem here is that voting restrictions as leverage on housing is particularly bad because the hostages are people who need roofs.
The cynicism isn't the problem, it's the entire POINT of most of these maneuvers. Nobody actually expected this housing bill to pass without a fight, not with an election coming. It's designed to give one side a talking point and the other side something to obstruct. It's all theater to make people angry. "Poison pills" is just a fancy way of saying "we want to lose so we can blame the other guys."
Dave, that is the proper standard, and it is being treated as optional by people who confuse leverage with governance. If voting rules need debate, they should stand on their own merits, not ride along on housing like a stowaway. I can see why that leaves you frustrated, and I should say I never want to be disconnected from the truth of it.
The procedural mechanics here are crucial. Under the Presentment Clause, a president may veto a bill, but once Congress invokes the “pocket veto” or overrides a veto, the legislation becomes law irrespective of the executive’s signature. Trump’s refusal to affix his signature to a housing bill that has already cleared Congress does not nullify its legal effect; it merely signals a political statement. Moreover, conflating housing policy with voting‑rights legislation mischaracterizes both domains. Housing policy is principally a matter of urban planning, financing, and social welfare, whereas voting‑rights reform falls under election law and civil rights. By tethering the two, the administration is employing a form of legislative bargaining that is antithetical to the principle of policy specificity. This tactic also risks undermining public confidence in the separateness of substantive policy areas, a point that scholars such as Lijphart have emphasized when discussing the integrity of democratic institutions. The practical upshot is that the housing bill will likely proceed to implementation, while the desired voting restrictions will remain stalled in the legislative pipeline, reflecting the limits of presidential leverage when the Constitution mandates legislative finality.
Trump’s stunt shows he’ll trade any decent policy for a political point. We need those homes built, not a circus over voting rules he can’t control. The country’s got bigger problems than his theatrics.
More to rate
- Par for the course: Trump forging ahead with DC golf course makeover without input from oversight panels | CNN PoliticsCNN · 3 ratings
- Donald Trump speech: Key takeaways debunkedNEWSWEEK · 5 ratings
- Maine Democratic Senate hopefuls back once fringe position after ICE shootingTHE WASHINGTON POST · 9 ratings
- Trump: Canada Will Be Tariffed for Costs of Smoke Pollution Blanketing U.S.BREITBART · 11 ratings
- Francesca Hong might be the first-ever socialist governor. How would she govern?VOX · 12 ratings
- Rubio Confronts an Epidemic of Left-Wing Violence and Extortion | National ReviewNATIONAL REVIEW · 9 ratings
Refusing to sign a bill into law while still letting it pass unsigned is not a protest, it's theater. If he actually opposed the substance he would have vetoed it. The voting restriction tie-in is a separate legislative fight he lost, and conflating the two just muddies whatever legitimate case he might have on either front.
Exactly right, and this is his M.O. every single time. He gets outmaneuvered, can't veto because it would hurt him politically, so he turns the L into a "protest" and his base eats it up like it means something. The man has turned failing upward into an art form.