A strange thing has happened over the past month or so: Senate Republicans have begun to stand up to President Trump. Haltingly, tentatively, perhaps, but on things that matter, a bit of spine has been sighted. What matters? Well, they’ve objected to the controversial appointments of Herman Cain and Stephen Moore to seats on the Federal Reserve—so much so, that, when lumped together with an utter lack of qualifications and handful of scandals, both men withdrew their names from consideration. They were primed to stop the confirmation of Ken Cuccinelli—a man who made a career out of attacking GOP senators—as head of Citizenship and Immigration Services (until Trump went and appointed Cuccinelli to an acting role). There’s the vote to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia after the murder of a Washington Post columnist. And they’ve even passed a disaster relief bill that included funding for Puerto Rico but didn’t give a dollar to Trump’s border wall.

The GOP has, in particular, gone into a tizzy over Trump’s seemingly improvised threats to levy tariffs against Mexico. With companies like General Motors—the largest exporter of manufactured goods from Mexico to the United States—feeling the potential pinch, a bloc of Senate Republicans last week threatened to join with Democrats in a veto-proof majority if Trump went ahead with his unilateral trade war. Trump quickly abandoned his threat and, instead, made a half-hearted declaration of victory.

This growing willingness to undercut the president’s policy and personnel decisions has, however, coincided with Republicans growing ever more defensive of Trump himself. As Democrats slowly investigate the myriad number of scandals enveloping his administration, businesses, and personal life, the GOP has doubled down on their dear leader.



This is no accident. Instead, it reflects a dynamic that will continue to define Washington for the foreseeable future. Republicans have become more willing to buck the president’s wishes when they deviate from GOP orthodoxy. But on the issue of corruption, in particular, they will act as a phalanx. That is, to some extent, a result of the coming election cycle, in which their fates are tied. But, it more importantly points to a party increasingly bound together by an embrace of a corrupt and plutocratic approach to governance.

As Bloomberg’s Jonathan Bernstein perceptively wrote over the weekend, much of this dynamic is explained by Trump’s failure as a chief executive. Many of these decisions—particularly the appointments and the tariffs—appeared to have been largely improvised, and were carried out without consulting relevant leaders and stakeholders.