Brian Schatz

Common attends a rally in support of Proposition 40 and in opposition to Propositions 41 and 42, related to a proposal to tax billionaires, ahead of the midterm elections in Los Angeles, California, US, October 5, 2026. REUTERS/Mike Blake

Progressives including Rep. Ro Khanna slammed a recommendation from Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz, who will be the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate if the party retakes control of the body following the November 3 midterm elections, that Democratic legislators should moderate their ambitions if they regain control of Congress.

Speaking on CNN’s “The Arena” with Kasie Hunt on Thursday, Schatz responded to Hunt’s question about how a governing Democratic caucus might respond to the “energy” and “anger” on the left with a word of caution.

“I do not think it is time to propose things that the president of the United States is guaranteed to veto,” Schatz said. “I think that is somewhat of a bit of wasted energy. And then if we want to be more aspirational, if we want to make more bold policy changes, we’re going to have to take the presidency and both chambers and that’s for 2028.”

Instead, Schatz argued that Democrats should see a midterm victory as an “institutional check against an out-of-control president” and use its leverage “to try to bring this war to a conclusion and to reverse the Medicaid and SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] cuts.”

Not everyone agreed with Schatz’s prescription, however, arguing that forcing President Donald Trump to veto popular policies could only help the Democrats going forward.

Progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) wrote on social media late Friday that Democrats should force Trump to veto a litany of progressive policies from Medicare for All to blocking aid and bombs to Israel to taxing billionaires.

“Make him veto Medicare for All,” he advised.

Groundwork CEO Lindsay Owens called Schatz’s strategy “worrisome” on Saturday.

“Trump vetoing bills to make healthcare cheaper is a good political outcome for Dems,” she wrote on social media, arguing that it would increase the likelihood of a Democratic victory in 2028.

Writer Katelyn Burns agreed, writing: “No, wrong. You pass the popular agenda and let the other party stand in the way of what the people want. Why the fuck would you pre-veto shit??”

The Debt Collective wrote: “This broken ideology actually explains a lot. They just genuinely do not understand the strategy of making President Trump veto popular things—it almost makes you wonder if they just don’t support the popular things at all.”

“Let’s just not make waves and confirm Trump’s judges for two years, maybe let Republicans run the committees too, that would be the sensible move,” wrote The Prospect executive editor David Dayen.

Austin Ahlman, a reporter and political analyst for anti-monopoly think tank the Open Market Institute, joked: “Smart. Wouldn’t want anyone to mistake you for the opposition.”

Report typos and corrections to [email protected].

For customer support contact [email protected].

Get the stories driving Washington—and the stories others miss—delivered free to your inbox.