When The Bully Pulpit Backfires
How $TRUMP set back a bipartisan bill.
Good morning! It’s Friday, May 9, 2025. 179 days until Election Day 2025. 543 days until Election Day 2026. There may have been white smoke from the Vatican yesterday, but there was black smoke from the Capitol. — Gabe
The American president is endowed with various powers by the Constitution, but one of his greatest assets is supposedly one that is found nowhere in the document: the power of communication.
In a nod to Theodore Roosevelt, we often refer to the president’s unique platform to spread his message as the “bully pulpit.” And it’s true: the Oval Office comes with an enormous megaphone. When the president speaks, everyone listens. .
But that doesn’t mean that everyone’s persuaded. Presidents are incredibly divisive figures; instead of bringing people around to their position, oftentimes when presidents speak out, they have the effect of negatively polarizing people against their stance. Voters who may have been undecided, or even supportive, on an issue will often switch to opposing it if it becomes attached to a president they happen not to like.
This, along with the concept of thermostatic public opinion that I’ve written about before, can help explain why Americans became more pro-immigration under an anti-immigration president, and then more anti-immigration under a pro-immigration president:
Americans also became more anti-free trade under a globalist president; now, the country is growing more pro-free trade under a protectionist president.
Go figure.1
Presidential endorsements can similarly be the kiss of death for bipartisan bills in Congress.
In her book, “Beyond Ideology,” the Princeton political scientist Frances Lee shows that when a president stakes out a position on an issue that otherwise has no obvious ideological valence, the odds of a party-line vote in Congress shoot up.
We often think of a speech like the State of the Union address as helping bring attention to the president’s stance on an issue. But, according to Lee, congressional roll call votes become 34% more polarized on a bill that’s mentioned in the annual speech.
We saw something along these lines this week, when the Senate failed to advance the GENIUS Act (full name: the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act).
The measure, if enacted, would be the first major American law regulating cryptocurrency; specifically, it would lay out a regulatory structure for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency where the value is pegged to an existing asset (often the U.S. dollar or another fiat currency) to ensure a relatively stable price.
Under the bill, entities issuing stablecoins would be required to obtain licenses — either from state governments (if the entity has fewer than $10 billion in assets) or the federal government (if the entity has more than $10 billion in assets).
Crypto is a great example of an issue without many pre-existing ideological commitments attached. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 17% of Democrats say they’ve invested in, traded, or used a cryptocurrency. That number only goes up to 18% among Republicans.
When the GENIUS Act came up for a vote in the Senate Banking Committee in March, five Democrats joined the panel’s Republicans in supporting the measure, which passed in a bipartisan 18-6 vote.
(It doesn’t hurt that the crypto industry — which backs the bill, as it will likely lead to more widespread usage of stablecoins once they no longer exist in a legal gray area — has poured donations into the campaign coffers of candidates on both sides of the aisle.)
But when the bill arrived on the Senate floor this week, those same five Democrats — as well as another Democrat who had co-sponsored the bill — voted to block it from advancing.
What happened in the last two months to change their minds? Trump happened. Or more specifically, $TRUMP happened.
The president hasn’t tied himself to the GENIUS Act specifically — but he has placed himself close to crypto, an issue he promoted during the 2024 campaign. And then, of course, he launched his own memecoin after winning the presidency, courting controversy when he announced a presidential dinner for $TRUMP’s top 220 holders.
That news, plus Trump’s crypto business launching a stablecoin as well, appears to have been enough to spook Democrats away from a bill they previously supported. Some might have supported the underlying policy, but now that Trump is so attached to crypto — and in a way that they can score points with — the bill’s Democratic co-sponsors seem to spy more of a political advantage from letting the bill flounder than letting it become law.
Democrats demanded the GENIUS Act be amended to prevent the president and public officials from issuing stablecoins. Republicans, unsurprisingly, refused. Senators held hours of negotiations, but ultimately the measure failed to advance in a 48-49 vote. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) voted against it, as did every Democrat.
As I noted in February, President Trump re-entered office with an enormous opportunity to enact bipartisan pieces of legislation — an opportunity that, for the most part, neither side has expressed much interest in after a brief post-election period. The GENIUS Act ofers an interesting test of that appetite for bipartisanship — one that isn’t yet complete.
The bill is expected to return to the Senate agenda next week, as lawmakers continue to seearch for a path forward.
WHAT ELSE CONGRESS DID THIS WEEK
The House voted 406-1 in favor of the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act, which would enact sanctions against those involved in forced organ trafficking. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was the sole “nay” vote.
The House unanimously approved the No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act, which would prohibit the State Department from spending funds on a policy, program, or contract that knowingly uses goods from China’s Xinjiang region, where are up to 1.5 million Uyghurs have been sent to forced labor camps.
The House voted 211-206 for the Gulf of America Act, which would codify President Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. The measure passed along party lines, except for a “nay” vote from Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE).
More news to know
AP: Robert Prevost, first pope from US in history of the Catholic Church, takes the name Leo XIV
ABC: Trump appoints Fox News host Jeanine Pirro as top prosecutor in DC
Semafor: Trump endorses higher tax bracket for wealthy, complicating tax talks
Fox: Acting FEMA administrator out after pushing back against Trump agency plans
CBS: Trump fires longtime Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden
WaPo: Uproar over surgeon general pick exposes MAHA factions among RFK Jr. allies
The day ahead
President Trump will sign executive orders in the Oval Office.
The House and Senate are out for the weekend.
The Supreme Court has nothing on its schedule.
As an aside, I recently learned that the Vatican has its own version of thermostatic politics which is known as “fat pope, thin pope,” referring not to the Pontiff’s weight, but ideology, as papal conclaves (like the American electorate) will often bounce between picking a liberal-leaning pope, then a more conservative pope to follow him, and then a liberal pope to follow him, and on, and on.
Same concept, but “fat pope, thin pope” is a much more fun name than “thermostatic theory of public opinion.”
Not that I generally approve of anything Senate Democrats do, but the fact that a $TRUMP is actually becoming a thing, really makes me wonder about the 48 Republican senators who "wouldn't" vote against giving it the permanent imprimatur of an act of Congress. Are they just crazy or am I missing something here? Thanks to Hawley and Paul for taking one for the country. Nothing in particular against Trump, but what if this were a Biden Dollar we're talking about? Sigh. Our so called government is such a mess.
Gabe. Always with an insightful take that little else discuss 👍