The Dangerous Tradition of Democratic Shadow Diplomacy

When Representative Jamie Raskin warned foreign governments against working with President Donald Trump, his language was not merely provocative, it was dangerous. "When we come back to power," he said, referring to a future Democratic administration, "we are not going to look kindly upon people who facilitated authoritarianism in our country." It was a statement made with the casual menace of someone who believes they can govern the globe by threat alone. The danger of such rhetoric, however, lies not in its bluster but in its implications: a direct signal to sovereign nations that the legitimacy of American foreign policy hinges not on the presidency, but on the favor of the opposition party. This is not merely partisan overreach, it is an invitation to global instability.

Diplomacy, like deterrence, requires consistency. If foreign governments believe American policy changes with congressional midterms, then alliances fray and adversaries calculate. Wars begin, not when nations are strong, but when they appear fractured. Raskin’s threat is not an isolated lapse. It is the latest episode in a long pattern, one in which Democratic politicians, operating from the legislative branch or even as private citizens, have attempted to reshape U.S. foreign policy against the sitting Republican president.

Let us begin with a historical example, so implausible it would seem fictional if not documented: in 1983, during the apex of Cold War tensions, Senator Edward Kennedy sent an emissary to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov offering to help counteract President Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memorandum uncovered from KGB archives, Kennedy proposed ways for the Soviets to improve their image in America and even suggested that Andropov tour U.S. media outlets to broadcast peaceful intentions.

That same year, House Majority Leader Jim Wright, later Speaker of the House, sent what has since been termed the "Dear Commandante" letter to Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega. Wright and his colleagues condemned Reagan’s support for the Contra resistance and praised Ortega’s internal reforms, effectively assuring the Soviet-backed Sandinistas that the United States was divided. In other words, congressional Democrats were undermining the Commander-in-Chief’s policy during a proxy war against Soviet influence.

Fast forward to 2007. Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with Bashar al-Assad, then an international pariah and known supporter of terrorism. This was not a fact-finding mission or oversight activity. The Bush Administration had explicitly warned against engagement with Assad’s regime. Yet Pelosi proceeded, delivering mixed messages about peace and diplomacy, and even mischaracterized messages from Israeli leaders. President Bush called the trip counterproductive. Legal scholars noted the potential violation of the Logan Act. And foreign governments, no doubt, took note: the American House of Representatives had a different foreign policy than the American President.

When President Trump assumed office, the frequency and brazenness of such conduct escalated. Former Secretary of State John Kerry, no longer in government, met privately with Iranian officials in 2018. His message was clear: hold on, resist Trump, wait us out. He reportedly told Palestinian leaders the same. These are not ambiguous meetings, nor harmless chats. Kerry was advising foreign powers to reject the policies of a sitting president, effectively urging them to bet on regime change in Washington. This is not diplomacy, it is sabotage.

Even sitting senators joined the effort. In 2020, Democratic Senators including Chris Murphy met privately with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. The Trump Administration had severed formal communication with Iran in the wake of withdrawal from the nuclear deal. But Murphy and others evidently felt entitled to their own channel, one they did not disclose until news reports surfaced. This behavior not only undermined the White House’s leverage, it also signaled to Iran that bipartisan unity was absent, and that pressure could be endured until the next election.

The same pattern appeared in the Israel annexation debate. In 2020, as the Trump Administration signaled support for Israel extending sovereignty over parts of the West Bank, eighteen Senate Democrats sent a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Alternate Prime Minister Benny Gantz warning that such a move would jeopardize U.S.-Israel relations. In short, they threatened an ally not to trust the President’s promises. That letter was not sent to Foggy Bottom, but directly to Jerusalem.

The pattern is unmistakable. When a Republican occupies the Oval Office, Democratic lawmakers increasingly act as de facto shadow diplomats. They reassure foreign adversaries, rebuke allies, and promise reversals of presidential policy. While such behavior may seem to fall into a grey area of oversight, it violates a foundational principle of American constitutional design: foreign policy is the province of the executive. As the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., the President is the "sole organ" of American foreign relations. The Court’s language, though sweeping, affirms a vital reality: only one person can represent a nation abroad. Not ninety senators. Not one Speaker of the House. Not a failed Secretary of State turned private citizen.

Yet the legal framework has struggled to keep pace. The Logan Act, passed in 1799 to prevent precisely this kind of unauthorized diplomacy, remains in place but has never been successfully used. Its breadth and the First Amendment have rendered it a paper sword. But the norm it embodies endures: Americans should not subvert their own President in the eyes of the world. Violating that principle does not merely confuse allies or embolden adversaries, it degrades the very concept of national sovereignty.

Rep. Raskin’s statement takes the old pattern and wraps it in something more explicitly threatening. His warning is not only a rejection of Trump’s foreign policy, it is a message that Democrats will retaliate against countries who cooperate with their own President. That message invites instability. It encourages countries to hedge their alliances, to defer cooperation, or worse, to actively undermine U.S. policy in hopes of earning favor with the next administration.

This is not politics as usual. It is not merely intemperate speech. It is an abandonment of the constitutional order. It elevates faction above country and places America’s foreign credibility in the hands of whichever party has the louder voice. If this practice is not checked, politically, if not legally, it will unravel the capacity of any president to conduct foreign policy. In a world beset by great power competition and rising threats, that is not merely foolish, it is perilous.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.