California Sen. Adam Schiff has rolled out a bold legislative package aimed at reining in what he sees as unchecked power from President Donald Trump's administration.
According to ABC News, Schiff's updated "Protecting Our Democracy Act," introduced on Wednesday, targets actions by the Trump White House over the past eight months, including the acceptance of a luxury jet from the Qatari royal family for use as Air Force One without congressional approval and the imposition of global tariffs.
Building on a 2021 version of the bill that passed the House but stalled in the Senate, this iteration adds new restrictions on pardon powers, strengthens congressional subpoena enforcement, and seeks to protect whistleblowers while creating an inspector general for the Executive Office of the President.
Schiff's bill zeroes in on presidential pardons, expanding limits to cover former presidents and presidents-elect with new reporting and financial disclosure requirements for those pardoned. It’s a clear jab at preventing self-serving or ally-protecting pardons, something Schiff views as a growing concern.
Another key update amends the National Emergencies Act to stop presidents from indefinitely wielding emergency powers without congressional review. This change directly challenges Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for tariffs, which Schiff labels an abuse, especially after federal courts ruled them unlawful.
The senator’s frustration is palpable when he calls out these tariffs, arguing they bypass the checks and balances meant to keep executive power in line. While the intent to curb overreach is evident, one wonders if such reforms would tie the hands of any administration facing genuine crises.
The bill also introduces the "Stop Millionaires Using Service for Kickbacks" Act, a pointed measure requiring government employees to recuse themselves from matters tied to recent employers’ financial interests. This provision, with its not-so-subtle acronym MUSK, takes aim at Elon Musk’s role as a special government employee under Trump.
Schiff’s broader push for reform harkens back to post-Watergate changes after Nixon, which he once wrote “served us well for almost half a century.” Yet, his insistence on updating those safeguards now feels like a reaction more personal than principled, given his history of clashing with Trump.
His quote about preventing “another wannabe strongman” sounds noble, but it’s hard not to see this as a targeted campaign against one man rather than a bipartisan shield for democracy. If the goal is truly institutional protection, why not focus equally on potential overreach from any party?
Schiff’s animosity toward Trump isn’t new, stretching back to leading the first impeachment trial in 2020 and his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot investigation. Trump’s retaliatory calls last year to prosecute Schiff, followed by a preemptive pardon from President Joe Biden, only deepened the rift.
Schiff openly opposed that pardon, telling ABC News, “I don’t think the president should have issued the pardons that he did.” His critique of the precedent it sets for Trump to pardon family or allies is valid, though it’s curious he doesn’t acknowledge how such actions fuel the very political gamesmanship he claims to despise.
Recent months have seen Trump intensify attacks, alleging mortgage fraud against Schiff, claims the senator denies while facing a Justice Department investigation. These personal battles muddy the waters, making one question whether this legislation is about safeguarding democracy or settling scores.
Schiff remains undeterred, planning to reintroduce this bill as long as necessary, even admitting changes might only happen after Trump’s term ends. His hope for eventual bipartisan support, as he told ABC News, hinges on Republicans rediscovering their appetite for limiting executive power when a Democrat holds the office.
Additional moves, like his “Citizens Over Corporations” amendment to overturn Citizens United and curb corporate election spending, signal a broader agenda at a Constitution Day news conference with fellow Democrats. But in a polarized Congress, these ideas risk being dismissed as partisan posturing rather than serious governance.
Ultimately, Schiff’s reforms raise a fair point about balancing power, yet they seem crafted more to constrain a specific administration than to fortify democratic structures universally. If the pendulum swings, as he predicts, will these same rules bind his own party with equal force, or are we witnessing a selective application of principle?
