Want to Protect our Democracy? Vote for (Certain) Democrats.

If you want to protect our democracy, then you must vote Democratic. But that won’t be enough to put the brakes on the rampant lawlessness and democratic backsliding. The current administration's criminality and disregard for the rule of law calls for a muscular Congressional response, which necessitates the kind of Democratic Party officials that have been hard to find of late. The game has changed and the stakes are too high to play by the old rules.

Over the past year, the failure to adequately defend democracy has fallen upon not only elements of the Democratic Party, but also those allies empowered (and funded) to help. Too often, the Democratic Party, its allied organizations, and well-resourced nonprofits and NGOs have responded to escalating assaults on the rule of law with caution, fragmentation, silence, or a “strongly-worded letter.” Each ineffective measure is inevitably followed by the fundraising emails with escalating rhetoric we all receive. 

Faced with open challenges to judicial independence, selective enforcement of accountability, and creeping normalization of authoritarian tactics, many institutions that exist explicitly to protect democratic norms have chosen risk management over moral clarity. Messaging has lagged events, litigation has been reactive rather than strategic, and donor-driven priorities have crowded out the sustained, coordinated defense that this moment demands. The result is a troubling gap between the scale of the threat and the urgency of the response. Voters can no longer afford to ignore the fact that nothing happening in Washington is going to save our republic. We’re going to have to save ourselves.

The 2026 midterm elections will be a referendum not just on policy preferences but on something far more fundamental: whether American democracy and the rule of law remain non-negotiable principles or merely partisan conveniences. In that environment, the country does not simply need more Democrats. It needs certain Democrats: those willing to stand up, consistently and publicly, for democratic norms, transparent governance, and accountability even when doing so is politically uncomfortable.

Democracy Is No Longer a Background Issue

For much of modern American politics, democracy functioned as the background condition of disagreement. Parties argued fiercely about taxes, healthcare, regulation, and foreign policy, but the legitimacy of elections, the independence of the judiciary, and the peaceful transfer of power were largely assumed. For many years, my career took me all around the world to help promote these values. Throughout that time and despite our flaws, I could consistently point to the United States as a place where democracy and the rule of law still mattered.

Unfortunately, that example no longer holds. Efforts to overturn election results, normalize political violence, delegitimize courts and independent institutions, and restrict access to official records are not isolated phenomena. They are deeply entangled with the broader question of whether public officials answer to the people and the law. This reality has changed the stakes of electoral politics. The question in 2026 is not simply “Who should control Congress?” It is “What kind of Congress is capable of defending the system itself?”

Corruption, Illegality, and Executive Overreach

In recent years, multiple investigations, prosecutions, and controversies have unfolded that go beyond ordinary political dispute and raise systemic concerns about accountability and the rule of law including questioning the results of elections, criminal indictments, flouting the law (both US and International), and an overall sense of collapsing rule of law.

Efforts to Subvert the 2020 Election

President Donald Trump was at the center of multiple criminal investigations concerning efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. In Georgia, he and 18 associates were charged under state racketeering laws for actions including recruiting fake electors and pressuring officials to change certified results. Prosecutors alleged Trump conveyed to Georgia’s top election official that he should “find 11,780 votes” to reverse the outcome. Jack Smith, former Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the “investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”

The Maduro Capture and International Law Concerns

In early January 2026, U.S. forces executed a high-profile operation to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and bring him to the United States on federal charges related to drug trafficking and weapons. While Maduro faces serious criminal charges in U.S. courts and was clearly an odious authoritarian, the operation’s manner has drawn scrutiny from legal scholars and international officials. This mission clearly contravenes core principles of international law and lacked clear congressional authorization. While it may be a good thing that Maduro is out of power, history has taught us that it matters how these transitions occur.

The Jeffrey Epstein Files and Challenges to Transparency

The case of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has long been a point of public controversy, in part because of the powerful people who intersected with his social circle and the government’s handling of investigation records. Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act with broad support, mandating the release of unclassified files related to Epstein’s criminal investigations and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Despite that law, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice missed statutory deadlines to disclose the full set of documents. The files themselves contain a massive volume of correspondence, flight logs, photos, grand jury transcripts, and other investigative material from Epstein and Maxwell’s cases—much of it heavily redacted. Trump’s name appears in the released documents, including references to flights taken with Epstein. The Epstein files controversy highlights a broader issue: whether the executive branch honors its legal obligations for transparency and accountability, even when politically inconvenient. When deadlines are missed, disclosures are partial, and questions about public records become fodder for partisan spin rather than civil oversight, trust in government erodes.

Can the Democratic Party Protect our Democracy?

The Democratic Party is a broad coalition under which a multitude of interests are represented. That has always been both a strength and a weakness. Big tents can win elections, but they can also obscure differences in courage, clarity, and governing philosophy. Recent proposals to reform the Democratic Party have focused on improving internal accountability, modernizing campaign operations, and restoring trust between party leadership and grassroots activists. These efforts include tightening expectations around neutrality in contested primaries, increasing transparency in party decision-making, and strengthening ethical standards related to campaign finance and outside spending. Reform advocates argue that a more open, disciplined party infrastructure is essential not only for electoral success but for ensuring that Democratic candidates can credibly run on integrity, the rule of law, and democratic norms—values that are increasingly under strain in national politics.

At the same time, critics within the party have raised concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding the Democratic Party’s internal post-mortem of the 2024 elections. The decision to keep key findings out of public view has fueled calls for greater openness and honest self-assessment, particularly as Democrats prepare for the high-stakes 2026 midterms. For many reformers, this moment is about more than winning individual races; it is about strengthening the Democratic Party as a durable bulwark against democratic backsliding, authoritarian impulses, and political corruption. Candidates who embrace these reforms can position themselves as part of a broader effort to renew democratic institutions, defend the rule of law, and ensure that government remains accountable to the people it serves.

Some Democrats treat attacks on democratic norms as rhetorical excesses to be managed. Others see them for what they are: structural threats that require vigilance to protect our Constitutional order. The distinction matters. Democrats worth supporting in 2026 share several defining characteristics:

• They are unequivocal about the legitimacy of elections and certified outcomes.

• They support the rule of law even when it implicates powerful figures or short-term partisan advantage.

• They champion transparency and accountability, including enforcement of laws for public disclosure of government records.

• They understand that institutional guardrails including courts, inspectors general, ethics processes, and independent civil servants are critical to protect the rule of law.

These Democrats do not hedge when democracy is tested. They do not minimize anti-democratic behavior for the sake of “moving on.” They do not mistake civility for capitulation.

Accountability Is Not Extremism

One of the most damaging narratives in recent years is the idea that holding public officials accountable is somehow destabilizing. Democracies fail when accountability is abandoned, not when it is enforced. Voters should be skeptical of candidates—of any party—who argue that investigations, prosecutions, or ethical oversight should be avoided to preserve “unity.” Unity built on impunity is temporary and brittle. It teaches future actors that power shields misconduct. Democrats who are serious about changing Washington must be willing to say plainly: no one is above the law, and consequences are not optional.

The Importance of the 2026 Midterms

Midterm elections often receive less attention than presidential races, but their impact on governance is immediate and concrete. Control of Congress determines whether democratic backsliding is challenged or enabled, whether oversight is real or performative, and whether reforms to protect elections, civil liberties, and institutional integrity advance or die quietly in committee. Electing Democrats who understand this moment—and are prepared to act accordingly—is essential. That means prioritizing candidates who have demonstrated backbone, not just ambition; clarity, not just talking points.

The 2026 midterms will not just shape legislation, they will shape precedent. They will signal what voters are willing to tolerate, and what they are not. If you want to change Washington, vote for Democrats. But more importantly, vote for the Democrats who understand that democracy itself is on the ballot—and are willing to fight accordingly.