MSNBC host Jen Psaki urged Democrats to avoid overusing the phrase “constitutional crisis” when criticizing President Donald Trump’s actions, suggesting they should instead focus on how his policies impact everyday Americans.
Key Facts:
- MSNBC’s Jen Psaki advised Democrats to stop “screaming” about a constitutional crisis regarding Trump’s executive actions.
- Psaki suggested the party focus on how policies affect farmers, veterans, and Medicaid recipients rather than abstract legal arguments.
- The discussion arose in the context of the Trump administration allegedly ignoring a court order.
- Some Democrats and pundits have claimed Trump’s executive actions pose a constitutional crisis, though legal analysts, including MSNBC’s Danny Cevallos, disagree.
- Psaki also criticized Vice President Kamala Harris’ decision to campaign with former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney.
- She noted that Democrats’ messaging about “authoritarianism” and “democracy on the ballot” often fails to resonate with voters.
The Rest of the Story:
Psaki’s comments came amid growing concerns within the Democratic Party about the effectiveness of their messaging against Trump.
While some party members emphasize legal challenges to Trump’s executive actions, Psaki argued that this rhetoric doesn’t connect with the average voter.
Instead, she suggested Democrats should focus on tangible issues like access to healthcare, benefits for veterans, and economic stability.
During an MSNBC segment, Psaki warned that repeatedly labeling Trump’s policies as a constitutional crisis might not only be ineffective but could also alienate voters who prioritize day-to-day concerns.
She pointed to the importance of discussing how government policies directly impact working-class and rural Americans rather than using academic or legalistic language.
Psaki also took issue with some Democratic strategies, such as Vice President Kamala Harris campaigning alongside Liz Cheney.
She questioned whether closing out a campaign with a message of bipartisan opposition to Trump was the best way to appeal to voters.
MSNBC's Jen Psaki warns Democrats against 'screaming' about Trump creating a constitutional crisis https://t.co/P3SNERY3FE
— Fox News (@FoxNews) February 17, 2025
Commentary:
For once, we agree with Jen Psaki.
Democrats have spent years fearmongering about Trump, throwing around terms like “constitutional crisis” every time he does something they don’t like.
The reality is that Trump’s policies—whether on immigration, the economy, or foreign affairs—are often popular with the American people.
The more Democrats scream about him, the more they expose their detachment from everyday voters.
If Democrats want to compete in future elections, they need to stop being insane.
Ordinary Americans don’t care about legalese from Washington insiders—they care about their jobs, inflation, and whether they can afford groceries.
The obsession with Trump as some existential threat to democracy has only pushed more voters away from the party, as seen in recent polling and electoral trends.
That said, we remain skeptical that Democrats are capable of taking Psaki’s advice.
The party has been hijacked by radical activists who believe every policy they dislike is a constitutional crisis.
Their leadership is too weak to stand up to the extremists within their ranks, and as a result, they are likely to double down on the hysteria.
If that’s the case, they should brace for another round of election losses.
The Bottom Line:
Jen Psaki’s remarks highlight a broader debate within the Democratic Party about how to frame opposition to Trump.
While some push for strong legal arguments, others like Psaki argue that economic and social issues should take center stage.
Whether Democrats adjust their messaging could have a significant impact on their ability to connect with voters heading into the next election.
– New Poll Shows Who California Democrats Want For Governor in 2026
– White House Blasts Left Wing Sen. Murphy as a ‘Moron’ After Falling For a Parody Account
– Homan Fires Back at AOC Over Mocking His Words that ‘Evading Law Enforcement’ Has Consequences