A Growing Boycott Takes Shape Ahead of the State of the Union
WASHINGTON — An unusual political split is unfolding ahead of President Donald Trump’s upcoming State of the Union address, as a growing number of Democratic lawmakers say they will not attend the annual speech. Instead, several plan to participate in an alternative event dubbed the “People’s State of the Union,” organized in partnership with the progressive media platform Midas Touch and advocacy group MoveOn.
The boycott, while not without precedent in American politics, appears larger in scale than in previous years. Organizers say dozens of members of Congress are expected to skip the address, though final attendance numbers remain fluid. The move underscores deepening partisan tensions at a time when Washington is already grappling with disputes over executive authority, immigration enforcement, and trade policy.
Senator Schiff Announces He Will Skip the Address
Among the most prominent lawmakers to announce his absence is Senator Adam Schiff of California. In a public statement, Schiff said he would not attend what he described as a speech that “cannot be treated as business as usual,” citing concerns about the administration’s approach to the courts and the Justice Department.
Schiff instead plans to appear at the alternative event outside the Capitol. Other Democratic senators and representatives have issued similar statements, saying they intend to use the evening to engage constituents through town halls or parallel programming rather than sit in the House chamber.
A Broader List of Lawmakers Join
Lawmakers who have publicly indicated they will not attend include Senators Mark Kelly, Chris Murphy, Tina Smith, and Ruben Gallego, among others. Some have framed their decision as a protest against what they describe as executive overreach, while others say they prefer to spend the evening addressing local concerns directly.
Critics of the boycott argue that attending the address is part of the constitutional rhythm of governance and that participation does not imply endorsement. Supporters counter that symbolic gestures can be powerful tools in moments of political dispute.
Debate Over Institutional Norms
The boycott has sparked debate across cable news networks and political commentary programs. Some analysts contend that skipping the speech risks eroding long-standing institutional norms. Others argue that protest itself is part of democratic expression.
The State of the Union address, while rooted in a constitutional requirement that the president report to Congress on the condition of the nation, has evolved into a televised prime-time event that often serves both governing and political purposes.
Economic Policy at the Center of Tensions
The backdrop to the boycott includes renewed disputes over tariffs and executive authority. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of the United States limited aspects of the administration’s trade policy, prompting heated exchanges between the White House and congressional critics.
Trump has defended his economic strategy, arguing that tariffs will strengthen domestic manufacturing and produce long-term growth. Some Democrats counter that consumers and small businesses are bearing the brunt of higher import costs. Financial markets have responded sharply to court rulings and policy announcements, reflecting investor sensitivity to trade developments.
Echoes of Past State of the Union Moments
The dispute also invites comparisons to prior addresses. In recent years, presidents including Joe Biden have used the State of the Union to press ambitious legislative agendas, while opposition lawmakers have at times declined to applaud or attend.
Historically, the speech has been both ceremonial and combative — a platform for outlining policy priorities and drawing contrasts with political rivals. Whether Tuesday night’s chamber will show noticeable empty seats remains to be seen.
The Role of Media and Political Amplification
The debate has extended beyond lawmakers to media figures and commentators, including sports broadcaster Stephen A. Smith, who criticized the boycott as counterproductive. Progressive organizers, meanwhile, argue that alternative platforms provide space for voices they believe are underrepresented during the formal address.
The clash highlights how political messaging now unfolds simultaneously across traditional broadcasts, digital platforms, and independent networks, often blurring the line between journalism and advocacy.
What Tuesday Night May Signal
If dozens of Democratic lawmakers do indeed skip the speech, it would mark one of the most visible coordinated absences in modern State of the Union history. Whether the gesture shifts public opinion or deepens partisan divides is uncertain.
For now, the boycott reflects a broader struggle over institutional norms, executive authority, and the tone of national politics. As the president prepares to address the nation, both the chamber and the sidewalks outside the Capitol may offer competing visions of the state of American democracy.
