Dems LEAK Plan to Boycott Trump’s State of the Union

At least 12 Democratic lawmakers will abandon the constitutional ritual of the State of the Union next Tuesday, turning their backs on President Trump to stage a competing rally just blocks away from the Capitol they were elected to serve.

Story Snapshot

A dozen Democrats will skip Trump’s State of the Union address on February 24, organizing an alternative “People’s State of the Union” rally on the National Mall
Senator Chris Murphy and Representative Ansari lead the boycott, citing concerns about legitimizing what they call corruption and lawlessness
The coordinated absence marks an escalation from first-term walkouts, with MoveOn and MeidasTouch organizing the counter-event featuring federal workers and immigration enforcement targets
Democratic House minority leader rejects the boycott strategy, planning to attend with the pointed reminder that Trump is “coming to our house”
The protest unfolds against a backdrop of partial government shutdown, immigration controversies, and midterm election positioning

When Symbolic Protest Becomes Political Theater

The Constitution requires the President to inform Congress about the state of the union. Article II, Section 3 establishes this duty without partisan exemptions. Yet a growing faction of Democrats treats this 234-year tradition as optional, preferring staged spectacle over institutional responsibility. Senator Murphy frames attendance as lending “a veneer of legitimacy on the corruption,” suggesting his presence somehow validates policies he opposes. This logic collapses under scrutiny. Lawmakers legitimize their opponents’ agendas by refusing to challenge them where it matters most: in the chamber where laws are debated and national priorities are set.

The Numbers Tell a Different Story About Resistance

This boycott involves at least 12 members of Congress, a fraction of the Democratic caucus. More revealing: of the 31 Democrats who boycotted Trump’s first inauguration and remain in Congress, seven attended his second inauguration. The resistance that once defined Democratic opposition has faded considerably. The House minority leader’s decision to attend alongside most colleagues exposes the boycott as a fringe maneuver rather than principled party strategy. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson correctly identifies the tactic as refusing to celebrate policies that have benefited Americans, shifting focus from substance to symbolism.

Trading Influence for Instagram Moments

Representative Ansari plans to bring a guest affected by immigration enforcement to the Mall rally. This gesture might generate sympathetic coverage, but it accomplishes nothing legislatively. The lawmaker surrenders the nationally televised platform where real pressure can be applied, where camera cutaways capture reactions, where walkouts during actual policy pronouncements create genuine tension. Instead, Democrats cede that stage entirely to Trump, who will deliver his economic message unopposed while they preach to their own choir blocks away. Senior Hill Republicans worry about shutdown optics, but boycotting Democrats hand them an easy counter-narrative about obstruction.

MoveOn and MeidasTouch Orchestrate the Departure

The involvement of MoveOn and Democratic media network MeidasTouch reveals this boycott as carefully choreographed activism rather than spontaneous conscience. These organizations excel at generating online engagement and small-dollar donations. They struggle to change votes or shift policy. The “People’s State of the Union” branding packages protest as populism, but it represents political consultants mining outrage for mailing lists. Federal workers idled by the shutdown deserve better than being deployed as props in a counter-programming stunt. If Democrats believe Trump’s actions warrant this level of protest, the appropriate response is impeachment proceedings, not performance art.

The Long Game Democrats Are Losing

Boycotts as normalized political strategy corrode shared democratic rituals that transcend election cycles. Trump’s opponents spent his first term warning about institutional erosion and norm-breaking. Now they pioneer the very tactics they condemned, establishing precedent for future Republican boycotts of Democratic presidents. The short-term calculation seems clear: energize the base before midterms by demonstrating fierce opposition. The long-term cost is less obvious but more corrosive. Americans already struggle to identify common ground across partisan divides. When elected officials cannot even occupy the same room for a constitutional obligation, they model division rather than debate. Political analysts questioning whether absence strengthens or weakens institutions miss the point. It does both simultaneously, weakening the institution while strengthening tribal identities.

The State of the Union will proceed Tuesday evening with or without Democratic boycotters. President Trump will tout economic gains and border policies to a Republican-controlled chamber and a national television audience. The absent dozen will rally on the Mall, amplifying their objections to exactly nobody who might be persuaded. Come Wednesday morning, the government will remain partially shut down, immigration enforcement will continue unchanged, and 12 Democrats will have traded their constitutional role for a news cycle. They call it moral clarity. Common sense calls it political malpractice dressed up as principle.