Frustrated Democrats try new response to Trump barrage: Flood the zone right back

Frustrated Democrats are fighting to counter President Trump’s flood-the-zone approach by adopting a mirror strategy with a simple goal: To flood the zone right back. 

Democrats have struggled to keep pace with the machine-gun tempo of Trump’s second term, which has featured a blitz of boundary-busting executive orders, mass deportations, federal firings, and broader efforts to gut the federal government.

The Democrats’ response to the frenzy of executive actions has infuriated the party’s liberal base, which loudly accused Democratic leaders of failing to push back against an aggressive White House in ways that meet the urgency of the moment.

The party brass appears to have noticed. Recent weeks have seen the Democrats coalescing behind an assertive new strategy designed to fight fire with fire — what House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) characterizes as a “more is more” playbook. 

The strategy is very much a work in progress as Democrats scramble through trial and error to locate communications techniques that can break through the noise of Trump’s frenzied second term.

And the actions of some lawmakers, like Sen. Cory Booker’s (D-N.J.) marathon floor speech, have been better received than the tactics of others, like Rep. Al Green’s (D-Texas) heckling of Trump on the House floor, which angered some Democratic moderates and led to Green’s censure.

Still, Democrats are increasingly rallying behind a mantra that’s perhaps best encapsulated by words attributed to the hockey great Wayne Gretzky: “You miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take.”

“I’m trying stuff — some stuff works, some stuff doesn’t,” said Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), who spoke up at a recent Democratic caucus meeting to warn colleagues that they’re losing the messaging war.

“But, like, every once in a while I get something that really captures the imagination and then my team goes back, we figure out: What was it about that?” she continued. “We have to do our own data-crunching in real time about what is resonating.”

“Flood the zone,” echoed Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), a leader of the Democrats’ messaging arm. “Communicate often, all the time, about what’s going on with a very simple message that the Republicans right now are — the reason they want to cut Medicaid, the reason they want to cut food stamps, is because they want to give billionaires a tax cut.”

“That’s what we’re talking about. And it’s resonating with people.” 

They have their work cut out. 

Not only do Democrats lack an obvious national leader, but from the minority wilderness in Congress the party lacks the authority to bring legislation to the floor, conduct hearings on topics of their choosing, or investigate the many scandals of Trump’s second term with the subpoena power available to the majority Republicans, who have shown little inclination to check the White House.

Democrats are being advised to stay focused on how the Republicans’ legislative designs will affect Americans’ futures, but they’re also stuck relitigating the past amid new revelations about former President Biden’s health.

And in the ongoing contest for voter attention, Democrats simply don’t have the same media infrastructure erected by the right, where conservative voices like Joe Rogan and Dave Portnoy enjoy wide appeal with millions of younger voters who have flocked to Trump.

In an effort to close the messaging gap, Democrats are turning to unusual tactics, like diving into GOP-held districts to conduct town halls. That strategy has allowed Democrats to communicate directly with voters in battleground regions, while also highlighting the fact that most Republican lawmakers are avoiding such public events amid an outcry over the steep cuts in federal programs featured in Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” 

“What we’re trying to tell people is that as much as [Trump] said he’s for you, he’s not. And the proof is in the pudding,” said Stacey Plaskett (D), the House delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands. “We recognize that Americans are getting their information and news not in the traditional ways that they used to. And it’s important for us to go to where they are.”

Frost, for one, has joined forces with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) to stage town halls in red regions. And he pointed, as another successful model, to the Democrats’ response to Trump’s joint address to Congress in February, when Democrats hosted a “spin room” in the Capitol basement where progressive podcasters and influencers mingled with Democratic lawmakers — and broadcast their anti-Trump messages to niche audiences far and wide. 

“Usually, the caucus will have maybe 30, 40 members go down there. This year, because the leader himself was involved and pushing people to go, we had 150,” Frost said. 

“But one time doesn’t win it,” he quickly added. “We need it to be a part of everyone’s day-to-day. So we’re getting there.” 

Jeffries has taken the lead of the Democrats’ enhanced outreach campaign, abandoning his traditional routine of one weekly press conference in the Capitol to stage at least two meetings with reporters each week — and sometimes more — to push back against the blizzard of White House actions.

In another gambit in late April, he and Booker staged a daylong sit-in on the Capitol steps to draw attention to the Republicans’ policy plans. 

The approach is not quite blind: Jeffries emphasized that the pushback effort is opportunistic — designed around the “timing and the rhythm of the legislative process and how we engage in making sure that we are aggressively pushing back when the moment presents itself.”

“We continue to be in a more-is-more environment,” he said. 

Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.), a front-line Democrat, said she’s encountering voters of all stripes who are feeling anxious amid the unpredictable actions from the White House, and they want to see Democrats fighting back with every tool available. In that environment, she said, the key is persistence.

“We’ve been attacking it on all fronts, and we have to keep doing that. Whether it’s amicus briefs or town halls or legislation or letters to the administration — we’ve just got to keep the drumbeat going,” she said. “They like it when you fight.”

“I don’t care what I’m invited to,” echoed Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). “I did the LA City Business Council — I took that as an opportunity to do my town hall. So I do it everywhere.”

Democrats are resigned to the likelihood that the immediate impact of the fight will be that nothing changes. Indeed, for all their fierce messaging against Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” they were powerless to block it from moving through the House last month.

But the ultimate goal is longer-term: flipping control of the House in next year’s midterms so they can provide a check on Trump in the final two years of his presidency. 

“We need every single tool right now, because we’re focused on winning back the majority. Like, that is the focus right now, because how else can we stop … all of these horrible policies?” Balint said. 

“It’s a numbers game. We have to get those people in those seats.”

Related articles

Kash Patel faces deadline to swat down ‘inherently plausible’ drinking allegations



FBI Director Kash Patel has five days to respond to a motion arguing his own public record proves The Atlantic's drinking allegations are 'inherently plausible.'

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan set the Aug. 17 deadline after granting a joint extension request, according to the court docket. The Atlantic filed its motion to dismiss on July 27.

The Atlantic's April story, "The FBI Director is MIA," reported that Patel drank to excess, missed work, and posed a national-security risk. Patel called it false and sued for $250 million.

"Print it, all false, I'll see you in court—bring your checkbook," Patel told the magazine through his spokesman before it published.

The Atlantic's lawyers argue Patel cannot meet the legal standard required of public officials in defamation cases. That standard — called actual malice — requires proof that a publisher knew a story was false or strongly suspected it was, according to the filing.

"The Complaint does not come close to satisfying this demanding constitutional standard," the filing said. "It does not allege a single fact showing that any statement in the Article is false, much less that Defendants had 'serious doubts' or 'actual knowledge of falsity' for any of these statements."

The filing goes further, arguing Patel's own public behavior undercuts his suit, according to the motion.

"The Article itself shows that the Allegedly Defamatory Statements are not implausible," the filing said, "but rather inherently plausible."

The filing said reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick spoke to more than two dozen sources, according to the motion. They included current and former FBI officials, members of Congress, and hospitality workers.

Six sources confirmed that briefings had to be rescheduled because of Patel's alcohol-fueled nights, the motion said.

Nine sources confirmed he panicked when a computer malfunction led him to believe he had been fired, according to the filing.

The story described officials telling Fitzpatrick that Patel's security detail had difficulty waking him on multiple occasions, and that a request was made for specialized breaching equipment — tools normally used by SWAT teams — because he was unreachable behind locked doors, according to the filing.

The filing noted that Patel's drinking was already a matter of public record before the story ran.

In February, Patel was filmed chugging beer in the U.S. men's Olympic hockey team's locker room in Milan. FBI headquarters was simultaneously managing a cartel violence outbreak in Mexico, CNN reported.

Days after The Atlantic published, a 2005 letter from Patel's Florida Bar application — obtained by The Intercept — disclosed he had been arrested twice on alcohol-related charges, once for public intoxication in 2001 and once for public urination after leaving a bar in 2005.

The story's fallout reached Capitol Hill the following month, according to Senate records.

At a May budget hearing, Patel agreed to take an alcohol use disorders test after Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) demanded it. Patel called the allegations "a total farce."

The Atlantic suit is the latest in a long line, according to the motion.

A federal judge in Texas dismissed Patel's defamation suit against MS NOW analyst Frank Figliuzzi the day after Patel filed against The Atlantic. The judge called Figliuzzi's comment about Patel's nightclub visibility "rhetorical hyperbole."

None of Patel's five defamation suits has succeeded, according to the filing.

Patel's response is due Aug. 17. The Atlantic's reply is due Aug. 31.

“Alarming” toxins test results for Niagara Falls couple

The McKiernan family’s yard after the DEC removed excavated...

2026 Women in Sports Discussion Panel

The Buffalo Bisons hosted their first-ever pregame...

Where the Bands Are: This Week in Live Music and Concert News

(REMINDER: these listings are curated and definitely not intended...