Why Democrats Can’t Really Fight Trump: The Hidden Donor Connection

Democrats put on a show of resisting Trump, but their financial ties tell a different story. Take Senator Cory Booker – he spoke for 25 hours straight against Trump, yet accepted nearly $1 million from pro-Israel political action committees since 2013. His actions reveal how Democrats only pretend to oppose Trump.

Democrats publicly criticize Trump’s policies but vote alongside his agenda, especially when dealing with immigration and foreign policy. The #Resistance movement that defined Trump’s first term has fizzled out. Trump even made unexpected progress in Democratic strongholds like New York during the 2024 election.

Money flows paint a clear picture. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries collected more than $1.15 million from AIPAC and other pro-Israel donors just for his 2024 re-election campaign. The Democratic Party’s approval ratings have hit rock bottom as they lose touch with their traditional voter base. This raises a crucial question – how can they claim to fight Trump while taking money from the same donors?

The illusion of Democratic resistance

Senator Cory Booker’s marathon speech on the Senate floor shows how Democrats have chosen dramatic gestures over real resistance to Trump’s agenda. The New Jersey Democrat broke a 68-year-old record with his 25-hour and 5-minute address. He surpassed segregationist Strom Thurmond’s infamous 1957 filibuster against civil rights legislation.

Booker’s filibuster and what it symbolized

Booker’s historic speech proved his physical endurance and “stamina and bladder control,” but it ended up changing nothing about Trump’s policy agenda. The address got millions of likes on TikTok and media attention, yet failed to block any presidential actions. His stated goal was to “disrupt the normal business of the United States Senate,” but the speech only delayed legislative proceedings without challenging Trump’s power.

Booker stated clearly, “I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able”. Notwithstanding that, this disruption became just another symbolic gesture instead of a real legislative obstacle. His marathon address showed Democrats’ broader pattern—they chose performative opposition over actual resistance.

Public statements vs legislative actions

Democrats’ public denunciations don’t match their legislative approach. Chuck Schumer, the 74-year-old Democratic minority leader, spends time on small issues like “providing running commentary on egg prices” rather than organizing real resistance to Trump’s agenda.

Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett puts it bluntly: “There’s a massive vacuum of leadership available to Democrats willing to take risks to fight Trump. But social media posts and floor speeches won’t cut it”. It also doesn’t help that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats to let Trump “stew in his own juice” instead of opposing him directly. This shows the party’s unwillingness to confront Trump head-on.

Why symbolic gestures fall short

These symbolic protests fail for several reasons. David Axelrod points out that Democrats face “unrealistic expectations” from activists who “want a catharsis,” while “the truth is the tools are limited”. Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt slam Democrats’ “just wait till the midterms” attitude as a “reckless theory” because “you can’t wait around until the midterm elections”.

The biggest problem isn’t Democrats’ low morale or tiredness—it’s their “failure of political judgment, a basic misunderstanding of the moment and of the potential for effective opposition”. Symbolic gestures like Booker’s speech create fake resistance without tackling the real issues.

Levitsky explains that opposing authoritarian leaders requires “a broad array of civic leaders and institutions” fighting a far-right leader rhetorically, “a coalition of politicians that surpasses traditional party lines,” or public outrage over one issue leading to mass protests. Democrats haven’t managed to achieve any of these approaches.

Senator Elissa Slotkin admits Democrats “have been on their heels since Trump won the election” and are “still finding our footing”. This cautious approach shows how Democrats have failed to mount real opposition to Trump’s agenda—turning their “resistance” into nothing more than political theater.

How donor influence shapes Democratic policy

Money shapes Democratic party policy more than most people realize. A look at the financial trail shows why Democrats can’t really stand up to Trump’s agenda.

The role of pro-Israel PACs

Pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) now dominate Democratic politics. They systematically remove candidates who criticize Israel and boost those who support the bipartisan consensus. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) backed 365 pro-Israel candidates with more than $62.42 million in the 2022 elections. They proudly announced that 98% of these candidates won their races.

AIPAC’s United Democracy Project (UDP) super PAC spent $85.19 million to fight progressive “Squad” members or support their primary challengers. The numbers are staggering. AIPAC and Democratic Majority for Israel poured more than $22.03 million into attack ads against progressive Democrat Donna Edwards in Maryland alone during 2022.

Democrats face a tough choice. They can either keep their donor relationships or take a stand against Trump’s Middle East policies. Most pick the money. Take Booker – he’s received nearly $3.67 million from pro-Israel PACs since 2013. This pretty much guarantees his votes against restricting arms to Israel, whatever he might say in public.

Corporate and tech money in Democratic campaigns

Silicon Valley has become another big player in Democratic politics. Tech industry donors have given more than $443.94 million to Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign. Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz contributed $187.64 million, and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman added $62.42 million.

Tech money flowing to Democrats has exploded:

• The industry pumped in about $389.96 million in 2020, almost triple the $138.43 million from 2016
• Democrats got 90% of all tech industry contributions in 2020
• Google ($41.66 million), Amazon ($17.92 million), and Meta ($15.31 million) heavily favored Democrats

This money comes with strings attached. Google said it opposed restrictive Republican voting laws publicly. Yet they funded a “policy working group” on “election integrity” with the Republican State Leadership Committee that backed these same laws. Hollywood’s big donors played hardball too. One told Senator Martin Heinrich straight up: “If you don’t publicly call for Biden to step aside, you won’t get a dime from me”.

Examples of policy alignment with Trump

These financial ties explain why Democrats often back Trump’s key policies. Senator Chris Murphy slammed “mass deportation” as “terrible.” Later, he bragged about supporting the “toughest bipartisan border security bill in a generation”. Democrats “continue to stand with Republicans on issue after issue”.

Democrats talk tough against Trump but rarely act on it. The party lacks “a clear, unified idea of what it would do differently”. This extends to Big Tech regulation too. Democratic mega-donor Reid Hoffman openly showed his “disdain” for Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan’s antitrust work.

Donor money explains the Democrats’ theatrical resistance to Trump. Critics point out that these donors “don’t care about what happens to a child in Cleveland or in Chicago. They only care about [their interests]”. The result? Democrats put on a show of opposing Trump while quietly pushing many policies their donors want.

Key figures and their contradictions

A closer look at prominent Democrats’ actions shows stark differences between their public Trump opposition and their voting patterns. Their resistance to Trump often falls apart when money and personal interests get involved.

Cory Booker’s votes on arms sales

Senator Booker’s voting record on arms sales tells an interesting story. He strongly backed resolutions against arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE in 2019. He stated that “U.S. made weapons have been used to harm civilians and destroy critical infrastructure” and criticized the administration for “emboldening Saudi and Emirati scorched-earth tactics.” The irony? Just two days after his 25-hour anti-Trump speech in 2025, Booker voted to keep arms flowing to Israel during its Gaza military campaign. His vote matched Trump’s Israel stance perfectly, which went against his own resistance message.

Money talks – Booker’s stance makes more sense when you look at his funding. Since his first Senate campaign in 2013, pro-Israel political action committees and donors have given him nearly AED 3.67 million.

Hakeem Jeffries and protest suppression

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries shows similar double standards. He staged a two-person sit-in on Capitol steps to protest Republican budget cuts. But his response to pro-Palestinian student protests was completely different. When Columbia University police broke up student camps, Jeffries backed the crackdown. He claimed protesters used “antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation” without any solid proof.

Money plays a role here too. Despite his loud opposition to Trump’s agenda, Jeffries pulled in more than AED 4.22 million from AIPAC and other pro-Israel donors during his 2024 campaign. This cash connection might explain why he won’t support protesters who criticize Israel.

Chris Murphy’s immigration stance

Senator Chris Murphy’s flip-flops on immigration policy stand out clearly. Murphy actually boasted on social media in January 2025 about Biden’s deportation numbers beating Trump’s: “In the first week, Trump removed 7,300 people. On average, Biden was removing 15,000 a week.” He added that “under Biden 72 percent of ICE arrests were criminals. Under Trump it’s dropped to around 50 percent.”

This came just months after Murphy wrote that “mass deportation is a (terrible) response to Americans’ real sense they are helpless.” By May, he proudly backed what he called the “toughest bipartisan border security bill in a generation.” His rapid position changes show how Democratic leaders often support Trump’s tough immigration policies while pretending to oppose them.

Why Democrats struggle to oppose Trumpism

_{Image Source: American Banker}

The Democratic party’s struggle against Trumpism runs deeper than surface-level posturing. Their weakness comes from deep-rooted problems within the party, not just failed tactics.

Shared ideological ground on key issues

Democrats face a fundamental challenge because they often align with Republicans on crucial issues. A critic put it bluntly: “A center-right party that shares core positions with its far-right opponent cannot mount real opposition. It can only pretend to”. The Senate votes demonstrate this alignment clearly. Democrats unanimously confirmed Marco Rubio as Secretary of State by 99-0, despite his long history of promoting xenophobic policies.

The party has steadily lost its grip on working-class voters of all races. Ben Tulchin, a pollster from Sanders’ campaigns, admits: “For years, the belief was Democrats have had demographic destiny on our side. Now, the inverse is true”. Most Americans now believe “the Republican Party best represents the interests of the working class and the poor”.

Fear of alienating major donors

The party’s wealthy backers create another significant challenge. Several major donors have stopped giving money because they see no clear party vision. Others worry about consequences – billionaire Reid Hoffman sees a “greater than 50 percent chance that there will be repercussions” for supporting Democrats.

Money fears have created a chilling effect. Silicon Valley strategist Cooper Teboe reports that about six major donors told him they were “temporarily pausing political giving out of fear of political retribution”. Some donors now move their assets overseas or structure donations through anonymous vehicles.

Lack of a unified alternative vision

The Democrats have no clear story to tell voters. Representative Jasmine Crockett states it plainly: “We have no coherent message”. This lack of direction has left the party adrift. While 83% of Democrats want their elected officials to push hard against Trump’s policies, 74% say those officials are doing only a fair or poor job.

The party’s default strategy seems to be waiting for Trump to fail. Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt call this a “reckless theory” because “you can’t wait around until the midterm elections”. The divide runs deep – only about a third of Democrats think Republicans value fairness, compassion, and personal responsibility.

The cost of compromised opposition

The Democrats’ weak opposition to Trump has created lasting damage to American democracy that goes way beyond political calculations.

Impact on public trust and voter turnout

The Democrats’ ineffective actions have sped up a dangerous decline in public faith toward political institutions. A study of 27 countries shows that 51% of people aren’t happy with their democracy’s performance, while only 45% express satisfaction. People’s trust in political parties has crashed even harder, dropping from 24% in 2013 to a mere 13% in 2020.

This trust breakdown shapes how people vote. While voter turnout stays steady because of civic duty, research proves that voters who don’t trust the system often submit blank or invalid ballots. Countries without strong opposition parties see their distrustful voters gravitating toward extreme or populist options.

Failure to check Trump’s second-term agenda

The Democrats’ lack of unified opposition has given Trump unusual freedom to push his agenda. His team has openly talked about using military forces against political rivals and painted Democrats as a “pernicious enemy from within”. Trump has also refused to promise a peaceful power transfer.

Chuck Schumer’s strategy to “pick the most important fights” has backfired badly. Democratic governors now privately push for stronger opposition. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker warned, “He is not somebody that you can appease”. This failed approach has led to what experts call a “chronic decline in the political system’s capacity for self-organization”.

Missed opportunities for real resistance

Democrats have wasted several chances to mount strategic resistance. Their early surrender on the spending bill “effectively legitimized the unlawful actions that President Donald Trump and his cronies are taking to reshape the federal government”. Rather than using government shutdown as a bargaining tool, Democrats “caved and gave President Trump and the Republican Caucus exactly what they wanted without even a single concession”.

Democracy experts Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt reject the “just wait till the midterms” mindset. They stress that “you can’t wait around until the midterm elections. There needs to be action taken now”. Civil society groups like churches, corporations, labor unions, and universities have also failed to create effective opposition.

The erosion of meaningful opposition

Democrats face a political paradox. They put on a show of resisting Trump while their actions line up with his agenda. Their financial ties, especially when you have pro-Israel PACs and corporate donors, limit their power to work against him. Politicians like Booker and Jeffries give passionate speeches against Trump’s policies. Yet their voting records reveal a different reality.

Voters see right through this gap between words and actions. Democratic strongholds now drift toward Trump. People’s trust in democratic institutions keeps falling. The party won’t risk losing donor relationships to stand up for principles. This makes them powerless against the core threats of Trump’s second term.

The impact is way beyond the reach and influence of party politics. Trump faces almost no pushback from institutions on his agenda because real opposition doesn’t exist. When Democrats give in on crucial issues, they make Trump’s attacks on democratic norms look legitimate. Critics say their “wait until midterms” approach shows they don’t grasp how urgent things are right now.

It also becomes nearly impossible to mount real opposition when Democrats share Republican views on immigration and foreign policy. They can’t fight policies they partly support or have backed before. Money dependencies and shared beliefs create a system where resistance becomes just an act.

Democratic leaders should know that speeches, tweets, and symbolic moves can’t replace real resistance. Their opposition will stay what critics call a “hollow performance” until they deal with their money ties and create a different vision. American democracy’s future depends on opposition forces being willing to put democratic principles ahead of donor relationships.