Politics Has a Time Problem

One of the biggest disconnects in politics is time.

A candidate might run for office in July 2026, talking about issues selected with consultants in February, based on polling from December 2025. They take office in January 2027 and propose legislation that might not pass until the end of 2028.

And because I’m in Massachusetts, which Ballotpedia ranked as the country’s least competitive state legislative system in 2024, that person might remain in office until 2058.

So how do we make sure candidates are not merely running in response to the latest news story? How do we judge them by what they intend to accomplish over the full period they might hold office?

There is no easy institutional answer. Voters and journalists simply have to ask candidates questions that reach beyond the present moment and get deeper to what they plan to do. (We can also pass some of my reforms to make sure we get to ask this every two years they’re up for re-election).

For Democrats running for state office in 2026, one of those questions should be:

What do you plan to do in response to the Trump administration after unified Republican control in Washington ends?

What 2027 Could Look Like

Since January 2025, Democratic-led states have been fighting policies coming out of Washington. Attorneys general have sued. Governors have used executive authority. Legislatures have passed laws. By January 2026, Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia had filed 71 lawsuits against the administration.

Here in Massachusetts, the House and Senate have each passed versions of the PROTECT Act, which would limit state and local participation in civil immigration enforcement and create protections against warrantless immigration arrests. The Senate version would also restrict arrests in places including schools, hospitals, childcare facilities, houses of worship and courthouses.

That is important progress. I support it and hope that it gets out of conference committee and to the Governor soon.

Now assume that Democrats win the House in 2026 and perhaps the Senate as well. Congress tries to curtail ICE. What happens next?

There are three broad possibilities:

1. Trump agrees to some Democratic demands and blames Stephen Miller or other advisers for the previous approach.

2. Trump refuses to compromise, and congressional Democrats eventually give way.

3. Neither side concedes, producing a prolonged federal shutdown.

In the first scenario, states may not have to do much more in direct response to Washington.

In the second, states will continue doing what they are doing now, although many of the most obvious legal and administrative protections may already be in place.

The third scenario presents a different challenge. A long shutdown could interrupt federal services, delay payments and create gaps in programs on which residents depend. States would then face pressure to fill those gaps, possibly for months, and without knowing when or whether the federal government would reimburse them.

That is the kind of problem candidates should be thinking about now, not after it happens.

2029 and Beyond

Take the thought experiment one step further.

Assume Democrats win the White House in 2028. ICE is abolished, reformed or subjected to stronger rules in 2029. Does that mean states are off the hook?

From the immediate response to Trump, perhaps.

But millions of people will still face barriers to building full lives because they speak a different language, lack permanent legal status or depend on a temporary visa. The end of one administration will not eliminate those obstacles.

For a legislator elected in 2026, whose bills or budget proposals may not take effect until 2028 or 2029, we should be thinking about how our plans are designed not just to respond to the immediate crisis, but are built for long-term progress.

A post-2029 agenda for the States

The magazine Liberal Currents recently published The Reconstruction Papers, a collection of proposals for rebuilding and reforming the federal government after Trump. Its stated purpose is not simply to restore the old normal, but to create something better than what we had in December 2024.

We need a similar exercise for state governments.

I would begin with three questions:

1. What pre-existing problems did Trump exploit to win?

2. What institutions and policy areas has his second administration damaged?

3. What major problems are approaching that we should not expect his administration to solve?

There will not be one correct answer.

Among the issues I have been thinking about, housing costs are near the top of the first category. Climate policy belongs in the second. The possibility of AI-driven job displacement belongs in the third.

Other candidates will have different answers. They should. The point is not to produce one predetermined platform.

The point is to think systematically.

If candidates and legislators across the states begin asking these questions now, we can enter 2027 and 2028 prepared to do more than react to the crisis of the day.

We can begin laying the groundwork for progress in the years that follow.