Democrats across the political spectrum—liberal, moderate, and progressive—appear united in their outrage over Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s decision to back the Republican-led bill to fund the government and prevent a shutdown. They argue that the legislation enables President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to continue dismantling the federal government while jeopardizing health care and veterans’ benefits. Without a signed bill, the federal government will shut down at 12:01 AM on Saturday.

Calls are mounting for Leader Schumer to resign. There appears to be a movement on social media demanding his resignation, across platforms including X, Bluesky, and TikTok.

Protestors in New York City are chanting, “Vote no, it’s time to go,” while some hold up signs that read, “Schumer — Be a fighter not a collaborator,” and, “Don’t be a Schumer chicken s—.”

SENATOR AOC?

Some are calling for U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the popular progressive Democrat from New York, to primary the 74-year old Schumer, who was first elected to Congress in 1981.

“I think there is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal,” Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez told reporters on Thursday. “And this is not just about progressive Democrats. This is across the board. The entire party. There are members of Congress who have won Trump-held districts in some of the most difficult territory in the United States, who walked the plank and took innumerable risks in order to defend the American people, in order to defend Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. Just to see some Senate Democrats even consider acquiescing to Elon Musk, I think it is a huge slap in the face, and I think that there is a wide sense of betrayal if things proceed as as currently planned.”

READ MORE: ‘Basically Underwater on Everything’: Trump in Big Trouble With Majority of Voters Poll Finds

Some House Democrats “are so infuriated with Schumer’s decision” that they have begun encouraging Ocasio-Cortez “to run against Schumer in a primary,” CNN reported Thursday night. “Multiple Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others directly encouraged Ocasio-Cortez to run on Thursday night after Schumer’s announcement.”

One member said that Democrats were “so mad,” CNN added, “that even centrist Democrats were ‘ready to write checks for AOC for Senate,’ adding that they have ‘never seen people so mad.'”

SCHUMER’S ‘STRATEGY’

When in the minority, Democrats for years have handed Republicans enough votes to help pass numerous “continuing resolutions,” bills that keep the federal government’s lights on, but this time it’s different. Right now, Democrats are aching for a leader who will fight the Trump/Musk/MAGA machine.

Their anger erupted Thursday night.

Leader Schumer on Wednesday had announced that it did not appear there would be enough Democratic votes to help Senate Republicans pass the House bill, and instead that they would filibuster it. But on Thursday afternoon he declared he would support the legislation, suggesting there would be enough votes to pass it.

.@SenSchumer (D-NY): “While the CR bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse … Therefore, I will vote to keep the government open and not shut it down.” pic.twitter.com/1IkuJqOObr

— CSPAN (@cspan) March 13, 2025

Schumer’s reasoning is not wrong, many are willing to admit. Elon Musk reportedly wants the shutdown because if the government stays closed for 30 days, he can then mass fire even more government employees.

But Democrats are saying Schumer’s rationale does not meet the moment. They want someone to fight, not cave.

Adam Jentleson is a writer, political commentator, and the former deputy chief of staff to the late U.S. Senator Harry Reid. Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, was an extraordinarily successful Senate Majority Leader from 2007 to 2015.

READ MORE: ‘Entire World Ripping Us Off’: Trump Quotes FDR in Angry Tariff War Meltdown

“There is a lot of ‘what would Harry Reid have done?’ and sadly we will never know,” Jentleson wrote late Friday morning. “But I can say that we won the 2013 shutdown because we spent months laying track on a clear message about health care. The terms of the shutdown were well-defined before it happened.”

Critics say that’s what’s missing — that Leader Schumer hasn’t bothered to do that.

Pointing to a late Friday morning report indicating that Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune said that he and Leader Schumer have not even spoken, Democratic strategist Matt McDermott writes, “The problem here is that all evidence suggests @SenSchumer has no strategy whatsoever. Absolutely stunning that he hasn’t talked to the Senate Majority leader, even to attempt to negotiate concessions.”

McDermott also offered this insight:

Not sure we’ve really seen a time where Democratic leadership was so seismically at odds with one another. This is not just voter frustration. Tweets like this suggest that the caucus itself is truly fractured right now. https://t.co/vmKnoetboq

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) March 14, 2025

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Thursday night sat down with Schumer, and summed up the situation for him.

“I’ve seen a lot of House members, and across an ideological range, interestingly enough, urging the Senate to filibuster this, saying, look, this is existential about whether we control the power of the purse or not. We cannot essentially sign off on this DOGE unilateral arrogation of this power,” Hayes explained.

The Democratic Leader’s response was that “it’s different in the Senate,” because voting against the bill in the House would not have led to a shutdown. But that’s incorrect. If the House bill failed, and no other passed, that would have absolutely led to a shutdown.

“I felt so strongly that the shutdown would be the greatest disaster we face with these arrogant, arrogant autocrats that we had to avoid the shutdown and fight and many of the other things, every other issue that we have,” Schumer added.

‘TEAM FIGHT’ — ‘MISREAD THIS AT YOUR OWN PERIL’

Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker issued a statement explaining his opposition to passing the continuing resolution, but his chief of staff late Thursday night served up an analysis of what Democrats are feeling.

“The fight going on in the Democratic Party right now is not between hard left, left and moderate,” explained Anne Caprara. “It’s between those who want to fight and those who want to cave. And Team Fight stretches across all ideological aspects of the Party. Misread this at your own peril.”

Right now, it appears there might be enough Senate Democrats willing to vote in favor of the continuing resolution, or at least, vote for “cloture,” meaning to allow debate on the bill.

One who is not voting yes is U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), largely considered a moderate Democrat.

“When I saw the House bill on Sunday, I said, ‘Hell no,’ because I just was not interested in voting for something that was going to enable these guys to fire more veterans and cut education and health programs, screw up air safety, tank the economy,” Senator Kaine said Thursday morning on MSNBC. “Why would I do it?”

Kaine noted that during an Armed Services Committee,”the Pentagon looked us in the face and said, this House CR will hurt national security, will weaken our ability to maintain ships and subs. It’s going to do damage to us. And then my Republican colleagues on the committee said, we agree with you, this is going to hurt national security, but it’s better than a shutdown.”

He criticized Speaker Johnson f0r sending House members home after passing the continuing resolution this week, because there’s now little means to alter the bill.

“And I decided then, when the Republicans are trashing this, but acting like they have to go along, I’m not going along.”

“I went back to my days in living in Honduras,” Kaine shared, “when it was a military dictatorship, and I learned something very important. That a bully can take something from you but you shouldn’t hand it over to him, so I’m voting no.”

Kaine also said, “we’re winning cases in court right now against things that Trump is doing. But if we vote for this bill and sort of say, ‘Okay, we’re going to put our imprimatur on some of this,’ I even worry it might make it harder for us to prevail in court on some of these battles.”

PRAISE FROM TRUMP

Critics from across the Democratic spectrum continue to blast Senator Schumer.

“Schumer’s decision is an unconscionable surrender that shows he does not have what it takes to meet this moment,” explained MeidasTouch co-founder Brett Meiselas on Thursday night. “Time for new leadership in the Democratic Party.”

“It is clear that some of us understand the present danger & some don’t! I stand by the NO vote on the blank check for Trump & Elon,” wrote U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). “I’ve got no explanation nor agreement with Senate Dems being complicit in Trump’s Tyranny.”

SiriusXM host Qasim Rashid, Esq. wrote: “Schumer thinks he’s smart to vote with GOP now because ‘in 6 months Trump will be unpopular.'”

“What’s Schumer smoking to think THIS time is different? Schumer—resign & retire.”

“How badly do you have to f— up being the Democratic leader that Trump is praising and congratulating you????” an astonished Elie Mystal, the justice correspondent for The Nation, asked on Friday.

Indeed, President Trump is praising Leader Schumer.

“Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for doing the right thing — Took ‘guts’ and courage!” Trump wrote on Friday morning. “The big Tax Cuts, L.A. fire fix, Debt Ceiling Bill, and so much more, is coming. We should all work together on that very dangerous situation. A non pass would be a Country destroyer, approval will lead us to new heights. Again, really good and smart move by Senator Schumer. This could lead to something big for the USA, a whole new direction and beginning! DJT.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Not Above the Law’: Fist-Pounding Democrat Explodes Asking ‘Where’s Elon Musk?’

Image via Reuters

He’s been called the “least qualified nominee in American history,” and has insisted to reporters that his confirmation battle will not be played out in the press, but Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, after multiple appearances before the cameras, appears to be gaining ground on what some assumed last week was a nomination that was dead in the water.

Hegseth has put to use his decade of experience as a Fox News host and leveraged his ties with his former employer to turn the ship around.

In addition to charges of being “wholly unqualified,” Hegseth is attempting to overcome numerous damning allegations, including tattoos that reflect an affinity for Christian nationalism, alleged “aggressive drunkenness,” possible alcohol intoxication on the job, alleged sexual assault of a woman who attended a Republican conference with her husband and children and says she was trapped by Hegseth in his room, and alleged financial mismanagement of two charities that support veterans.

He is also trying to change the accurate perception that he opposes women in combat roles. Women have been in combat roles in the U.S. Armed Forces since 2015. But Hegseth has long been opposed to women in combat.

READ MORE: ‘USA Is a Threat’: Canadians Slam ‘Bully’ Trump’s ‘Arrogant’ Mockery of ‘Governor Trudeau’

Last month, Hegseth took heat after declaring, “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” and that “men in those positions are more capable.”

Pete Hegseth 5 days ago: “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.” pic.twitter.com/0W3LDSakud

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 13, 2024

“Rather than fight, women are best suited to ‘carry the banner of Christian love’ into war as nurses and support staff members, Hegseth writes,” opinion columnist Carlos Lozada reported at The New York Times last week, citing passages from Hegseth’s book. “Women’s physical shortcomings compared with male warriors — in terms of bone density, muscle mass and lung capacity — would make the U.S. military ‘softer’ and easier to defeat. He also emphasizes that women are naturally ‘life givers,’ so do we really want to train them to become killers? Besides, if men grow accustomed to treating women as equal targets in wartime, he reasons, ‘then you will be hard-pressed to ask them to treat women differently at home.'”

Even top news outlets and political pundits appear to have been hoodwinked after Hegseth’s appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” Monday night.

Telling Sean Hannity he had a “great” meeting with U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) on Monday, the fast-talking Hegseth launched into apparently pre-scripted remarks (video below):

“I mean, people don’t really know this. I’ve known Senator Ernst for over ten years. I knew her when she was a state senator, running to be the first female combat veteran, and we support her in that effort and have continued to, because, you get, you get into these meetings and and you get, you get to listen to senators as an amazing advise and consent process, and you hear how thoughtful and serious and substantive they are on these key issues that they pertain to our Defense Department, and Joni Ernst is front and center on that, so able to have phone calls and meetings time and time again to talk over the issues is really, really important.”

“And the fact that she’s willing to support me through this process means a lot, and I also want an opportunity here to clarify comments that have been misconstrued that I somehow don’t support women in the military.”

“Some of our greatest warriors, our best warriors out there are women, who who serve raised their right hand to defend this country, and love our nation, want to defend that flag, and they do it every single day around the globe. So I’m not presuming anything, but after President Trump asked me to be his secretary of defense, should I get the opportunity to do that, I look forward to being a secretary for all our warriors, men and women, for the amazing contributions they make in our military.”

READ MORE: ‘I Love His Charisma’: Republican Lauds ‘Man of Integrity’ Hegseth Who Will ‘Get Rid of DEI’

What Hegseth did was change the framing of the controversy.

Hegseth isn’t under fire for saying he doesn’t want women in the military, he is under fire for saying he does not believe women are capable of serving in combat—even after nearly a decade of them doing so.

And yet, that’s exactly what he said on Monday, when he conflated “warriors” with combat soldiers, saying, “I also want an opportunity here to clarify comments that have been misconstrued that I somehow don’t support women in the military.”

And he’s getting help from the media.

Here’s CBS News on Tuesday morning, almost using his words as their own reporting: “now clarifying comments he made that women should not serve in military combat roles.”

His “clarification” did not state he now believes women should serve in combat roles.

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s embattled nominee for defense secretary, is now clarifying comments he made that women should not serve in military combat roles.

Hegseth is making his case on Capitol Hill, including in a meeting with Sen. Joni Ernst, the Senate’s… pic.twitter.com/Ql9BW8aavZ

— CBS Mornings (@CBSMornings) December 10, 2024

NBC’s “Today” show on Tuesday published a report on YouTube titled, “Pete Hegseth appears to reverse views on women in combat.”

David Axelrod successfully served as Barack Obama’s chief strategist for both of his presidential campaigns, and as a White House Senior Advisor to the President. Now a CNN senior political analyst, here’s what he wrote on Tuesday:

“Watching Hegseth proclaim his appreciation for women in combat, months after denouncing the idea of women in combat, is reminiscent of the SCOTUS nominees who told skeptical senators that Roe v. Wade was ‘settled law.'”

And while he is correct about the justices, the only woman he proclaimed his appreciation for being in combat was Senator Ernst, who largely holds the key to his confirmation.

Watch Hegseth’s “Hannity” interview and the other videos above, or all at this link.

READ MORE: ‘You Have to’: Trump Confirms Plan to Deport US Citizens With Undocumented Parents

In 2005, President George W. Bush’s nominee, John Roberts, became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Five years later, just over one quarter of the country (27%) disapproved of him. By last year, that disapproval number had risen to nearly half the nation: 46%.

Since 2021, Gallup reports, the Supreme Court’s disapproval rating has consistently remained in the mid to upper 50s—a roughly ten-point increase compared to the previous decade. The majority of Americans have an apparent growing dissatisfaction with a court that wields ultimate authority while becoming increasingly secretive and activist on some of the nation’s most consequential issues.

While the Supreme Court’s job is not to make decisions based on popularity contests, it relies on the other two branches of the federal government to enforce its rulings. And when the Supreme Court’s credibility falls into question, some warn, our institutions may be at risk.

In October, Bloomberg Opinion’s Noah Feldman warned the Supreme Court’s “legitimacy crisis is getting worse.”

READ MORE: ‘Two Things Could Be True’: White House Reveals Why Hunter Pardon Might Not Have Happened

“Democrats’ faith in the court began to fail after the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, then went into freefall over the last couple of years,” Feldman wrote. “They worry the justices aren’t sufficiently ethical. They deplore the eagerness of the court’s conservative majority to overturn 50 years of precedent on issues like abortion and affirmative action. They are appalled at the court’s defiance of originalism — the idea that Constitutional law should rest on the document’s original meaning — to grant criminal immunity to former President Donald Trump for official acts while president.”

Nearly two years ago the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), a progressive coalition of nearly 140 organizations “advocating for a fair and independent justice system,” published a piece warning that the Supreme Court was “destroying its own legitimacy.”

“The Court’s wounds are entirely self-inflicted,” William W. Taylor, III, wrote at the AFJ. “It has a far-right agenda and the scholarship informing its decisions is often questionable. Worse, new details have come to light of relationships some justices have had with wealthy ideological soulmates, including those with interest in cases before the Court. The Court’s credibility and the public’s acceptance of its decisions depends upon trust that it is not subject to outside influence. While lobbying may be common and acceptable in the legislative and executive branches, it is not — nor ought not to be — conceivable in our courts.”

The New York Times on Tuesday took a deep dive into the behind-the-scenes conversations at the end of the summer of 2023 among the Supreme Court justices as they weighed whether or not to establish a code of ethics, amid a nation angered by numerous reports of what many see as blatant corruption.

“Last year, pressure on the court and the chief justice intensified. Journalists revealed that Justice Thomas had accepted far more largess from Harlan Crow, a conservative donor, than he had disclosed, including decades of travel on private jets and a superyacht, and boarding school tuition for his grandnephew. The public uproar also reflected another concern: Virginia Thomas, his wife, had been involved in Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election,” The Times reports.

“Faced with ethics controversies and a plunge in public trust, they were debating rules for their own conduct, according to people familiar with the process,” The Times adds, revealing that “behind the scenes, the court had divided over whether the justices’ new rules could — or should — ever be enforced.”

In the end, the justices all signed onto a new code of ethics for the nation’s highest court, but one that “had no means of enforcement.”

It was quickly criticized.

READ MORE: Why the Hunter Biden Pardon Is ‘Justified’ According to Legal Experts

Liberals on the court have since gone public with their apparent frustration that although there is finally a code of ethics, there is no way to enforce it.

“All three liberals — Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson — supported enforcement, The Times reports.

“Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them, and this one — this set of rules — does not,” Justice Elena Kagan said in July.

“I haven’t seen a good reason why the ethics code that the Supreme Court adopted shouldn’t be enforceable,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson  said. “Other justices have posited certain ways in which it could be made enforceable but we have not yet determined or decided to do that.”

By contrast, at least some of the majority right-wing justices appear opposed to any code, certainly one that would have methods of enforcement.

“In the private exchanges, Justice Clarence Thomas, whose decision not to disclose decades of gifts and luxury vacations from wealthy benefactors had sparked the ethics controversy, and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote off the court’s critics as politically motivated and unappeasable,” The Times revealed. “Justice Gorsuch was especially vocal in opposing any enforcement mechanism beyond voluntary compliance, arguing that additional measures could undermine the court. The justices’ strength was their independence, he said, and he vowed to have no part in diminishing it.”

The Times also reveals that the justices “seemed to codify their own preferences” when they drafted, or signed off on the code of ethics.

Those preferences appear largely financial.

The justices “gave themselves no firm restrictions on gifts, travel or real estate deals. Nothing in the new rules appears aimed directly at the trips and gifts Justice Thomas accepted. The code says only that justices should uphold the dignity of the office and comply with existing gift guidelines, in separate federal rules, which make allowances for ‘personal hospitality.’ Justice Thomas has maintained that his nondisclosure of gifts and free travel did not violate those rules,” according to The Times. Other legal experts disagree, with some saying he broke the law.

Since signing the new code of ethics, “questions about the justices’ behavior have continued. The Times revealed that two provocative flags associated with the Jan. 6 riot had flown at the homes of Justice Alito and his wife. The second was displayed at his New Jersey beach house just as the justices were considering the new ethics rules. That summer, he also accepted concert tickets from a far-right German princess. He later disclosed those, but in keeping with the new rules, said nothing about his free stay at her 500-room Bavarian palace.”

Last month, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), among the Senate’s top proponents of Supreme Court reform, wrote: “As long as the Court maintains a secretive billionaire gifts program for justices and unique immunity from ethics scrutiny for itself, and as long as its decisions predictably align with those billionaire interests, its reputation will continue to crash.”

READ MORE: This Michigan Lawmaker Wants to ‘Make Gay Marriage Illegal Again’