UPDATE (Jan. 29, 2025, 1:07 p.m. ET): The White House on Wednesday rescinded its budget memo freezing federal grants and loans two days after it was issued amid widespread confusion over its impact.
Democratic officials faced some pushback from their party’s base last week, with many progressive voices arguing that Democrats should be more assertive in taking stands against Donald Trump’s radicalism and overreach. This week, there’s evidence of the party’s posture shifting.
As The New York Times reported, after the White House’s budget office ordered a freeze to federal grants, loans and related assistance — money that Congress has already appropriated — Democrats “across the ideological spectrum accused Mr. Trump of preying on the nation’s most vulnerable citizens by denying government aid for struggling families and the elderly and defunding police departments, transportation systems and hospitals.”
The Democratic reactions were also notable for their use of unrestrained rhetoric. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, for example, wrote via social media, “The freezing of federal grants, the firing of all inspector generals, the immunization of political violence — does everybody not see what’s happening? In a blitzkrieg, Trump is trying to collapse our democracy — and probably our economy — and seize control. Call it what it is.”
But there was a comment from one of Murphy’s colleagues that stood out for me. USA Today reported:
The stakes are existential, according to Trump’s opponents. “We have a constitutional crisis,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee.
Around the same time, The Associated Press ran a related report on the White House’s maximalist gambit, and the headline read: “Trump makes moves to expand his power, sparking chaos and a possible constitutional crisis.”
And that, of course, opens the door to an underappreciated question: What is a constitutional crisis?
Among political scientists, there is no obvious, consensus definition. That said, there’s a school of thought, which I’m generally sympathetic toward, which says there are two kinds of constitutional crises. The first arises when officials turn to the law for answers but the law is silent. When Woodrow Wilson had a stroke, for example, and he physically couldn’t fulfill his presidential duties, officials looked to the Constitution. The 25th Amendment didn’t yet exist, so the result was a of crisis of sorts: The law offered no guidance on how the government was supposed to function with an incapacitated chief executive.
The second kind of crisis, however, emerges when the Constitution establishes a legal framework, but those in positions of authority choose to operate outside those boundaries, necessarily challenging the constitutional order.
It’s precisely why Merkley’s quote might seem aggressive, but it’s easy to defend. Trump and his team are trying to seize powers that are delegated to co-equal branches; they appear indifferent to legal limits; and they’re using the powers of the state to target perceived political enemies.
It’s best not to use the “constitutional crisis” label too casually, and if Trump’s efforts are swiftly rejected in the courts, the emergency will subside. But in the meantime, it’s hardly outlandish to think the radical Republican experiment is worthy of provocative descriptions.
