Cozen Currents: The Battle for the Soul of the Democratic Party

“Democrats are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump, but there is less consensus when it comes to defining what they are for.” — Howard Schweitzer, CEO, Cozen O’Connor Public Strategies

The Cozen Lens

• Democrats are favored to retake control of the House in the midterm elections. However, the composition of their expected majority remains to be determined by ongoing primaries and will make a difference in terms of their agenda.
• President Trump’s recent decision to adjust his tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper underscores his intention of pressing on with tariffs, despite his defeat at the Supreme Court and the looming trade talks with the US’s biggest trading partners.
• As Republicans in Washington debate whether to advance federal election reform legislation by relaxing filibuster rules or pursuing budget reconciliation, several GOP states are passing their own election laws.

Subscribe to Cozen Currents

Contemplating the New Democratic Majority

The Battle for the House. The small range of competitive seats in 2026 means that each congressional district is important.

• Due to gerrymandering and partisan sorting, only a narrow band of districts are considered competitive this year. Cook Political Report rates 17 seats as toss-ups and 17 as “leaning” to one party. Sabato’s Crystal Ball rates 14 seats as toss-ups and 23 as “leans” Democratic or Republican. Inside Elections rates 10 seats as toss-ups and 15 as “tilts” one way or the other. While historical trends favor Democrats to retake control of the House, it’s clear that their majority is likely to be relatively small compared to the so-called “blue wave” during the 2018 midterms.
• Depending on which candidates Democrats nominate in the ongoing primary elections, they could lose winnable races, costing seats. They could also nominate candidates that would be uncooperative with leadership and create a less workable majority for likely House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). With a small margin, each individual lawmaker can be influential.
• In politics, there’s a saying that “Republicans fall in line but Democrats fall in love.” The GOP often has stronger party discipline, while Democrats tend to vote for candidates with charisma or prioritize ideological litmus tests. Many Democratic primaries this year have featured candidates challenging incumbents from the left or with a promise of generational change. This could result in the election of nominees who may be weaker general election candidates or lack substantive (or any) legislative experience.

Looking Back to 2018. The blue wave in the House during President Trump’s first midterms brought two new types of Democrats to Capitol Hill.

• That election year marked the introduction of the Squad, originally composed of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). They brought policy positions such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal to the fore, which shaped the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign and pushed the party to the left. Some believe these proposals may have sown the seeds for former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 defeat, though Ocasio-Cortez ultimately became an ally of former President Joe Biden, rejecting calls for him to drop his re-election campaign. AOC is now a prodigious fundraiser, one of the best-known Democrats in the country. She is also a potential candidate for Senate or even the Democratic presidential nomination.
• On the other side of the ideological spectrum, several more moderate Democrats with national security backgrounds, including now-Governors Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), now-Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), and former Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA), were also elected to the House in 2018. Some moved on to higher office, writing a new playbook for Democrats to win in the Trump 2.0 era, and giving themselves bigger platforms in the battle over the future of the Democratic Party in Trump’s second term.

Looking Ahead to 2027 and 2028. The next Democratic majority will determine the agenda of the party beyond just the second half of Trump’s current term.

• While Democrats are expected to flip the House, Republicans retain an edge in the race for Senate control, making divided control of Congress likely. House Democrats will face pressure from their base to conduct aggressive oversight of the Trump administration, which could include impeachment of Cabinet members or the president. Conviction, which requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, is highly unlikely. At the same time, House Democrats will have to work with a Republican-led Senate on must-pass legislation such as spending bills.
• The success of Jeffries’ new majority in oversight or legislation would rely on the composition of its members. In a survey last fall, Axios found that dozens of Democratic primary candidates declined to say they would even support Jeffries. While he isn’t likely to be the target of a rebellion like that which plagued former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Democratic infighting could create obstacles to advancing the party’s agenda.
• The next Democratic majority will also set the tone for what the party stands for before the 2028 presidential election. House Democrats will have the opportunity to pass messaging bills to outline their positions ahead of 2028 but members of the party may not be all on the same page.

Man of Steel

Metals in Focus. In an effort to simplify and strengthen his tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper, President Trump recently announced a raft of changes to the provisions.

• The primary adjustment was to move to imposing the tariff on the product’s full value, but differentiating products based on the amount of a given metal they contain. Now, products with very little of these metals will face no tariff, while those with metal content greater than 15 percent by weight will have the duty reduced to 25 percent. Finally, products that are entirely or almost entirely composed of the metals, such as steel coils and aluminum sheets, will pay the full 50 percent tariff.
• Additionally, Trump created two further exceptions, reducing the rate to 15 percent for metal-intensive industrial and electrical grid equipment through 2027 and lowering the duty on imported products made with entirely American metals to 10 percent. The goal of these provisions is to incentivize the use of American products and minimize the domestic impact of these duties on the White House’s efforts to upgrade the electric grid.

No End to Tariffs. Trump’s decision to adjust these tariffs rather than scrap them reflects his desire to move forward with his ambitious tariff agenda despite the defeat at the Supreme Court. Work is already underway to reimplement the sweeping reciprocal tariffs that were specifically invalidated.

• Alongside these adjustments to the metals tariffs, Trump announced new pharmaceutical tariffs that would reach up to 100 percent. However, these duties would not take effect for up to 180 days. Moreover, companies that make a deal with the White House, as well as generics, are excluded.
• While these actions are notable, work is still underway to replace Trump’s previous tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) is leading the two investigations expected to effectively reimplement Trump’s previous reciprocal tariff regime, but on a sounder legal footing.
• Section 301 probes can often take the better part of a year, if not more, to complete. However, USTR is pushing to expedite the process and have the probes completed by mid-July, when the 10 percent tariff imposed in the wake of the Court’s decision under Section 122 will lapse without congressional renewal. The ambitious timeline laid out by USTR will give it a chance to achieve this, with public hearings scheduled later this month and in early May.

Decisions Lie Ahead. As Trump continues to press ahead with his tariffs, the White House is expected to have further negotiations with its largest trading partners on the future of their relationships.

• All of this work on refining Trump’s tariff regime comes just ahead of Trump’s scheduled visit to Beijing on May 14 and 15, where he is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The White House has often referred to the relationship between the two countries as “stable” in recent remarks, taking a less confrontational stance toward the country. Still, while there will likely be several trade-related announcements from the meeting, it does not appear likely that any grand deal will be announced.
• Another significant trade negotiation underway is the renewal of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, with the countries scheduled for a joint review on July 1. It is unlikely that the deal will be renewed without changes, but the adjustments being discussed by the administration include the idea of replacing the trilateral deal with a pair of bilateral agreements. If no deal is reached this summer, the countries would have up to 10 years to strike an agreement to extend it and prevent it from lapsing. Trump may also threaten to leave the deal, which he can do, though it requires a six-month notice.

SAVE It for the States

Senate Not Acting. The House has passed the SAVE America Act, a top priority for President Trump that took up floor time without a viable chance of passage in the upper chamber.

• President Trump has long had a fixation on the possibility of voter fraud, even as other Republicans frequently wish he’d focus on more popular messages before voters. This passion has crested recently: there was the executive order pertaining to mail ballot voting on March 31.
• Then there’s the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo IDs to participate in elections. In a post on Truth Social, Trump declared that he would not sign any other bills until Congress sent the SAVE Act to his desk.
• The bill would specifically require eligible voters to present proof of citizenship — such as a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization certificate — in person to register to vote. If a voter’s name doesn’t match the birth certificate (e.g., married women who took their husbands’ names), they would be asked to provide additional documentation. It would also require a photo ID to vote (student and college IDs would not count) and voters sending ballots by mail would need to submit copies of their ID.
• If it were to become law, the SAVE Act would likely make it more challenging for millions of voters to cast a ballot. According to a survey conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice, VoteRiders, the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland, and Public Wise, nine percent of US citizens 18 years old or above said they did not have proof of citizenship documents “readily available,” which would equate to 21.3 million voters. The survey found that this percentage was higher among citizens of color (11 percent) than white citizens (eight percent).
• While the House has passed the bill, it does not have a viable path forward in the Senate. There is insufficient support from Republicans to bypass the Senate filibuster and a lack of support from Democrats to clear the upper chamber’s 60-vote threshold. Alternative paths to bypass the legislation, like a procedural tactic to advance the bill to the floor through just 50 votes now (even if the 60-vote threshold will bind later) or using reconciliation to pass reforms both have major obstacles.

Action in the States. While the full-court press from President Trump may be insufficient to spur congressional action, the pressure campaign is trickling down to the states. Some states are now passing their own election laws.

• Thirty-five bills across 18 states are circulating that would install proof of citizenship to vote. Within the past three weeks, four states have enacted these proposals into law. In Florida, the state Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles would have to verify citizenship. Absent that, people would only be able to cast provision ballots. The provision would go into effect after the midterms, in 2027. Student and retirement center IDs would no longer be sufficient forms of identification. One bill sponsor admits that approximately 872,000 Floridians do not currently have what would be required to vote. By contrast, in South Dakota, the law takes place immediately, impacting new voters as soon as the June primary. In Mississippi, all registered voters will be automatically enrolled in a state-run system that partners with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE) system. These efforts have generally revealed that only very small numbers of non-citizens are registered to vote nationally.
• Many of these laws will be or are already the subject of lawsuits. Florida’s effort has been contested by the NAACP among others. Attempts by other states to pass related legislation have previously been blocked or held up by the courts.
• Although it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota, Alaska, and West Virginia have ballot initiatives this November seeking to enshrine that ban in their state constitutions as well (Michigan may also join the list). There are only three states (and DC) where local governments permit certain noncitizens to vote (and only in local elections).
• The campaign from congressional and state Republicans to place additional requirements in order to vote have themselves inspired efforts from Democratic states to “Trump-proof” their elections. New Mexico has enacted a law prohibiting the deployment of troops or federal law enforcement at polling places. Maryland is considering a bill that would require police officers at the polls to obey the orders of state and local election officials. In California, a pending measure would prohibit law enforcement officers at all levels of government from making arrests within 200 feet of a polling place on Election Day.

Share

Share this...

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Linkedin