Jan-Werner Müller urges Democrats to pursue accountability after 2026 midterms

Müller urges testimony, court action and impeachment to build a public record

Fresh from what he calls an overwhelming 2026 midterm victory, Jan-Werner Müller argues that Democrats should reject a “move on” strategy. The Guardian US columnist, who is also a professor of politics at Princeton University, says the new Congress cannot maintain the “culture of political impunity” that “got us here in the first place.” He says Democrats have a mandate to enforce accountability rather than treat it as an abstract moral question. Müller nevertheless anticipates that Democrats might quickly divide over whether accountability would be seen as an unnecessary fracture. He also says the inability to address crimes and misdemeanors now will come back to haunt politicians and the nation.

In the short run, Müller proposes that Democrats force administration officials and people he calls “associated oligarchs” to testify under oath. He singles out people who claim civilian status but exercise state power in practice, saying “think Jared Kushner.”

Müller also asks what Elon Musk’s “vandals” did in 2025, whether they stole and weaponized data, and how exactly Musk’s companies remain untangled from the American state. Citing political scientist Dan Moynihan, he writes that it is absurd for Musk to have appeared more often on Saturday Night Live than before Congress to talk about Doge. Müller says the country needs answers and argues that dependence on one person, as Ukraine has already discovered, is incompatible with responsible governance.

On impeachment, Müller writes that the votes might not be there in the Senate, but Democrats could begin pursuing the most egregious Cabinet members. He says Hegseth and Robert F Kennedy Jr might compete for the top of that list.

Müller grounds his broader argument in a history of what he portrays as unpunished wrongdoing. He cites Richard Nixon’s forced resignation and prompt pardon by his successor, Ronald Reagan’s Iran-Contra actions without real consequences and Barack Obama’s call to move on after Abu Ghraib. He writes: “We moved on – and eventually found ourselves with Donald Trump, whose whole experience in life, business and politics has been one long morality tale about how elite figures get away with it.” Müller says Trump made impunity a basic principle of his approach to governing and exchangeable for loyalty. Administration officials whom Müller calls his “underlings” believe, he says, that Trump will pardon them before 20 January 2029.

Müller warns: “What has happened more than once is likely to happen again.” If Democrats do not find ways of holding “Trumpists” accountable, he says, the message to present and future politicians would be that there are never consequences. He adds that this would provide an incentive for people who fear the law to enter politics.

He also anticipates institutional resistance. Comparing the possible noncompliance to the last years of Trump’s first administration, he says people called to testify might simply ignore the invitation to the Hill. Müller predicts that Democrats can go to court and win, although that route would take time. He says direct legal consequences are unlikely as long as the Department of Justice sees itself as merely an extension of the president’s will. Müller says many lawyers have left and that the replacements he calls “sycophants” are often unqualified and unwilling to do anything about what he calls “rampant corruption and criminality.”

Policy scholar Norm Ornstein has suggested that Capitol police should capture recalcitrant individuals and hold them at the Capitol. Müller says the proposal is legally possible and has precedents but is unlikely to happen. He adds that detaining the individuals would provide symbolic closure for the period he says began with “Maga hordes” assaulting Congress on 6 January 2021.

Müller distinguishes two purposes of impeachment. Its political purpose, he says, is to prevent further damage to the Republic, while its separate pedagogical function is to show citizens evidence of crimes and misdemeanors. Carefully assembled evidence could eventually help a Department of Justice if it regained its integrity. Müller adds that the country, like societies emerging from authoritarianism elsewhere in the world, will need a precise record of what happened, if only for a sense of closure.

Müller argues that the repercussions of impunity for “Trumpists” are not confined to the United States. For any other government ever to trust an American administration again, he says, there would have to be globally visible accountability and a “comprehensive cultural distancing from Trumpism.” Concretely, he says no triumphal arch or statues, golden or not, can remain standing, and no foreign visitors should ever land at airports named for Trump. Müller accuses Trump of both inspiring and overseeing what he calls “hitherto unknown levels of corruption (as well as cruelty).”

He predicts Republicans will cry “weaponization” again. Müller interprets that response as showing that they are unwilling to entertain any limits on their leader’s behavior and on what must be called his “extended mafia state.” He also says some Republican senators might jump ship when confronted with whether they still support a secretary of defense who has done enormous damage to US military power.

Müller also addresses the possible Democratic divide. He says figures he calls “establishment figures” demand a focus on “kitchen table issues,” while others argue that successful candidates did more than campaign on the cost of living and connected people’s daily struggles with what he calls the “unprecedented corruption” of the Trump administration. Kamala Harris counseled Democrats to concentrate on “commonsense legislation” because the votes for impeachment simply are not there, while Barack Obama has called for politicians to bring the country together. Müller says that advice, however wise it might sound, would continue what writer Richard Beck has called the country’s “impunity culture.”

Against what he calls “self-declared moderates” among Democrats, who say precious political capital and public attention should not be squandered on issues with no impact on people’s day-to-day lives, Müller says those arguments underestimate citizens’ desire for justice. He also says they fail to account for the large majority in the House. Citing Raphael Warnock, he writes that “one can walk and chew gum at the same time.” Müller’s conclusion is that Democrats need not choose between household concerns and consequences for the Trump administration: the House majority allows them to pursue both while assembling the precise record that could eventually support a Department of Justice if it regained its integrity.