In instructing New Yorkers to vote for Andrew Cuomo, President Trump included a not-so-veiled threat. If voters chose Zohran Mamdani to represent them, he said Monday, “it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required, to my beloved first home.”
Across the Hudson River in New Jersey, a similar dynamic hung over the governor’s race. After the White House attempted to cancel the Gateway Tunnel, a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project, Trump’s preferred candidate, Republican Jack Ciattarelli, argued he was voters’ best shot to restore the funding.
“New Jersey needs a Governor who has the standing to work with, and when necessary disagree with, the President and advocate for New Jersey’s fair share of federal tax dollars — including the Gateway Tunnel,” Ciattarelli wrote on social media.
And in Virginia — among the states most reliant on federal spending — the elections were dominated by the administration’s firing of federal workers and the ongoing government shutdown. The possibility that, if Democrat Abigail Spanberger were to win, Trump would treat Virginia even more harshly was surely top of many voters’ minds. As one told Sarah Longwell’s The Focus Group:
I was like, shoot, are we going to pay the price down the road? So I’m that concerned, but I’m still not going to change my vote. So at least she’ll stand up to him, hopefully. In a respectful manner, so we don’t get, the state doesn’t get screwed.
This sort of coercion is the core weapon of competitive authoritarianism. Win power. Then, by hook or by crook, abuse that power to intimidate the country into obeying your commands.
Before Tuesday, the strategy had been working reasonably well. America’s business, cultural, judicial, academic, and political elites all proved to be alarmingly vulnerable to this authoritarian playbook.
At the same time, these elections were something new. Unlike Columbia University or CBS, Trump wasn’t just going after a single institution, one whose decisions are made by a CEO or a board. His target was 27 million New Yorkers, Virginians, and New Jerseyans, trying to get them all to submit to his will. Tuesday was the first time Trump’s second term entrenchment agenda went up against America’s voters, not just its institutional elites.1
Needless to say, the American people were not so easily cowed. The first major elections of the second Trump term looked nothing like the Potemkin ones that prop up autocrats in Russia or Venezuela. Instead, they were fiercely contested, fair contests with robust electoral competition and a smooth voting process.
The people had their say. And it was unequivocal. It was one of the most lopsided off-cycle elections in modern American politics.
Because the electorate didn’t just disobey Trump in New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey. Across the country — in Georgia, Pennsylvania, California, Maine, Connecticut, Colorado, and Mississippi — Americans voted against his candidates and his positions.
In essentially every race, in every context, Trump’s preferred option lost. The fact that this happened everywhere makes these elections impossible to read as anything other than a stinging rebuke of Donald Trump, his policy agenda, and his authoritarianism. (Certainly that’s what the exit polls suggest.)
The voters, in a phrase, didn’t back down.
And that’s not all…
The Senate and Supreme Court less willing to submit?
Just as Trump’s authoritarian agenda is failing to dominate the electorate, his grip on key institutions also may be faltering.
For months, he’s been clear that the legal case over his administration’s sweeping tariff regime is his absolute top legal priority. In recent weeks, he openly pressured conservative Supreme Court justices over the case. At one point, he even flirted with attending oral arguments in person, unprecedented for a modern president.2
Last Sunday, he wrote on social media:
It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court. If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!
The White House deliberately sought to make the tariffs case a loyalty test for a Supreme Court that it views as captured.
Maybe this particular dominance game will succeed, maybe it won’t. But if the oral arguments on Wednesday were any indication, even several of the Court’s conservative justices were skeptical of the White House’s radical claims of sweeping powers to unilaterally impose taxes on Americans.
Here’s Justice Gorsuch, sounding like a reader of this newsletter:
So Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the President. It’s a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.
It’s still early. We won’t know the final result until later in the term, likely December at the earliest (and there are many other executive power cases where this Court has shown much more deference). But the White House is preparing for defeat.
Watch: Legal and small business reactions to SCOTUS on Trump tariffs.
If the administration loses this case, it will be a political setback and a resounding rejection from the Supreme Court majority that President Trump built — and a clear indication that whatever else they’re up to, they are still willing to break from him on key issues.
Similarly, the Republican-controlled Senate is starting to show slightly more reticence to doing Trump’s bidding. First, it passed a series of bipartisan rebukes of his tariffs. And then, when the president demanded that Republican senators nuke the filibuster to reopen the government, the answer: “not happening.”
Those refusals to follow the White House’s orders are, together, a big deal.
Failure to consolidate makes Trump more reactive, not less
With every day passing, there is less time — and fewer paths — to tip the United States into autocracy.
The president has two choices: recalibrate or escalate. Chances are, if past is prologue, he will do the latter.
Expect the administration to significantly up attempts to undermine, distort, and eventually block a free and fair midterm election. Doing so will be exceedingly difficult — as we saw this week, the machinery of American elections is still well-insulated against White House interference. But expect them to now try much harder nonetheless.3
For more on what those efforts could look like, read Emily Rodriguez and Alexandra Chandler: The underlying tension haunting the 2025 election.
The White House may also significantly escalate its attempts to put soldiers on the streets, including with the Insurrection Act.
Read more: What Trump can and can’t do with the Insurrection Act.
And it may turn to even more drastic military moves abroad. This week, the administration threatened military action against Venezuela and Nigeria.
It’s going to get worse before it gets better. If you’re looking for wisdom, I recommend yesterday’s Democracy Atlas case study on Poland, one of the more inspiring instances of democratic resilience, but one still being written:
If you are still able to speak out, that means there is still democratic space to act. If you are still able to cast a vote that will count, even if the playing field is tilted, there is still an opening to change the trajectory of the country. Take advantage of the democratic opportunities that still exist — whether in the voting booth or the public square — otherwise, they may disappear.
Everyone has a role to play in protecting democracy, rebuilding what might have been lost, and dreaming up an even better future. Keep going.
‘Complete relief’ against ICE tactics in Chicago
A big legal win yesterday in our lawsuit in Chicago:
Throughout the hearing, Judge Sara L. Ellis repeatedly dressed down the federal government for lying, misleading, and misrepresenting evidence in her court.
“That is simply untrue.”
“Defendant Bovino admitted that he lied about whether a rock hit him before he deployed tear gas in Little Village.”
“Describing neighborhood moms and rapid response groups as professional agitators shows just how out of touch these agents are and how incredible their statements are.”
“I see little reason for the use of force that the federal agents are currently using. The use of force shocks the conscience.”
Read this thread from a Chicago political reporter covering the hearing live. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anything like it.
Here is my colleague Hayden Johnson talking about the significance of this case:
As Judge Ellis concluded, quoting John Adams:
“Liberty once lost is lost forever.”
WATCH: Live updates on our Border Patrol lawsuit in Chicago.
What else we’re tracking:
Together with partners, Protect Democracy sued the Trump administration to challenge its attempted politicization of the federal hiring process through a civil service loyalty test.
The New York City election featured fusion voting. The Center for Ballot Freedom has a great explainer of the dynamics on their Substack: Elon v. Hannah.
Highly recommend this sweeping profile by ProPublica’s Andy Kroll on White House budget chief Russell Vought: The shadow president.
The judge in DOJ’s case against former FBI Director James Comey berated the prosecutor for an “indict first, investigate second” approach. (Read Protect Democracy’s amicus brief in this case: “Hallmark of authoritarianism.”)
The Trump administration’s conflict with — and potential defiance of — the courts over SNAP funding escalated, with a judge ordering full benefits for November be paid by today.
The administration continues escalating its lawless boat strike campaign, claiming that the War Powers Act does not apply. Here’s Ian Bassin on MSNBC explaining the issue.
Americans are more open than ever to adopting proportional representation. According to G. Elliott Morris’s October Strength in Numbers/Verasight poll, “48% of adults say they would support a system where states are required to assign seats in the U.S. House in proportion to the number of votes won statewide.” Only 19% are opposed.
On Nov. 12, Protect Democracy, Generation Citizen, and Civics Unplugged are hosting a virtual roundtable event for youth participants to reflect on the first year of the (second) Trump presidency and lay out their long-term visions for transforming American democracy. If you’re a young person who cares about democracy — or if you’re interested in being part of an intergenerational pro-democracy conversation — register here.
You could also argue it was the second such case, with No Kings being the first. That one was similarly (and spectacularly) unsuccessful for Trump.
Even Trump’s allies saw this pressure campaign as going too far: “I’m sure the president is interested in the arguments,” said Republican Sen. John Kennedy. “Some may interpret it as an attempt to put pressure on the justices, and I think if the justices receive it that way, I’m not saying they will or they won’t, but if they do perceive it that way, I think it will backfire.”
One tactic that, counterintuitively, we may see less of after this week? Gerrymandering. If these sort of shifts — a 9-point swing from Harris to Spanberger in Virginia, an epic collapse among Hispanic voters in New Jersey — continue next year, new gerrymanders in states like Texas may be much less safe bets than map-drawers had assumed.
Just sent three American flag postcards today: to Judge Ellis, Judge McConnell (R.I.), and Judge Kolar-Kotelly (D.C.) thanking them for standing up for the Rule of Law and empirically-derived FACTS.
Hopefully we can all perform these small acts of gratitude to keep our spirits up and to give credit to the courageous jurists who put themselves at risk by opposing the fascist gang at the helm of our "government" right now.
This is so heartening. It takes courage to stand up as the folks in Chicago are doing. It takes courage to do the right thing. So glad to see this result.