The Democrats in the Senate have a handy excuse for why they are not passing bills that would benefit regular people but are opposed by their corporate donors: their hands are tied, they say, because Republicans will threaten an insurmountable filibuster and with conservatives in their caucus like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema they don’t have enough votes to change the filibuster rules.
But even when they have chances to pass popular Democratic bills without getting filibustered, they don’t even try.
According to the firm Pillsbury Law, May 27 was the last day that Senate Democrats could have used Congressional Review Act (CRA) “fast track” rules to overturn last-minute Trump administration rules by passing resolutions of disapproval, which can’t be filibustered. Rather than using that power to the fullest, Senate Democrats passed just three resolutions of disapproval within the 60-day window and let another three that had been proposed by their members effectively die as the deadline passed.
The Trump rules that Democrats could have unilaterally overturned but chose not to include:
- the ability for federally-funded social services programs to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity;
- authority for Social Security Administration to put their own attorneys in charge of appeals proceedings regarding rejections of benefits;
- a measure making it more difficult for investors to submit shareholder resolutions to hold companies accountable on issues like climate change.
When Trump took office in 2017, congressional Republicans passed 14 Congressional Review Act resolutions to gut Obama administration rules. The Republicans used it to weaken privacy protections for broadband customers, repeal a requirement that publicly traded companies disclose payments by resource extraction issuers, eliminate limits on states’ authority to drug test unemployment benefit applicants, and much more.
GW Regulatory Studies Center senior policy analyst Daniel Pérez analyzed proposed resolutions of disapproval and found that Democrats have been far less inclined to pursue using the CRA powers than Republicans. Democrats introduced just 27% of all disapproval resolutions over that period, Pérez found.
So why have Democrats been so shy about using the CRA? One reason they’ve given is that passing a CRA resolution bars the agency that issued the targeted rule from issuing new rules that are “substantially the same.” Some Democrats are concerned that this vague restriction on future regulations could hamstring agencies on regulations they would support, according to Politico.
“That legal argument is bogus,” said Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project. “Using the CRA would not preempt further efforts to regulate protectively and in accord with the missions each law grants the Department or Agency. Undoing a deregulation doesn’t preclude future affirmative regulation.
“I think floor time is scarce is a partial explanation, since recess seems sacrosanct to them,” said Hauser.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy