1 MIN AGO: Trump ERUPTS as Lawmakers DEMAND HIS RESIGNATION | George Will

So, Donald Trump just had a complete meltdown on truth social so severe that Republican lawmakers are now publicly calling for his resignation. And what triggered this explosion? A routine budget hearing where members of his own party questioned whether he had the temperament to handle the pressures of the presidency. The posts were so unhinged, so filled with threats against sitting members of Congress,

that even his most loyal allies are backing away. It's honestly hard to believe we're watching this unfold in real time. This isn't just about one bad day on social media or another Trump tantrum. We're talking about sitting Republican senators

and representatives, people who've defended him through everything, now saying publicly that maybe it's time for Trump to step aside. And trust me, when you've got members of your own party questioning your fitness for office

after one of your outbursts, something fundamental has shifted in American politics. Let me fill you in on what's been happening. The House Budget Committee held hearings on December 3 about federal spending priorities for the next fiscal year.

It was supposed to be routine, the kind of procedural work Congress does every year. It was supposed to be routine, the kind of procedural work Congress does every year. Republican members were asking questions about Trump's proposed budget, trying to understand the numbers and how various cuts would affect their districts. Nothing unusual, nothing hostile, just legislators doing their jobs. According to Politico's December 3rd report, Representative Tom Cole from Oklahoma, a long-time Trump

supporter and chairman of the Appropriations Committee, asked a straightforward question about proposed cuts to agricultural subsidies and how they'd impact rural communities. It was a fair question from a member representing farming districts. But here's where the rubber meets the road. Trump apparently watched the hearing live and interpreted Cole's question as disloyalty, as a personal attack, as betrayal by someone who was supposed to be on his team. And before we go any further, let's be real for a

second. Presidents get questioned by their own party all the time. It's called legislative oversight. It's literally Congress's constitutional job, but Trump has never been able to distinguish between legitimate questions and personal attacks. Here's where it gets interesting. According to multiple reporters monitoring Trump's Truth Social account, within 30 minutes of Cole's question, Trump began posting. The first post attacked Cole directly, calling him a weak rhino who never

supported the MAGA agenda. Then came a second post, then a third. By the end of the day, Trump had posted 17 separate attacks, each one more unhinged than the last. According to CBS News reporting from December 3rd, Trump's posts escalated from political criticism to personal threats. He called Kohl a traitor who should be primaried and removed from Congress.

suggested Cole might be taking bribes from special interests. Then he pivoted to attacking other Republicans who had asked budget questions, naming them specifically and calling for their removal from committees. The bombshell came in Trump's evening posts. According to CNN's monitoring of his social media, Trump wrote that members of Congress who question him are enemies of the American people and should face consequences. He used phrases like, they need to be dealt with and patriots know what to do. Legal experts immediately flagged these posts as potentially inciting violence against sitting

members of Congress. This wasn't political rhetoric. This was a former and current president appearing to threaten legislators for doing their constitutional duty. This sent shock waves through Capitol Hill because it revealed something Republicans had been trying to ignore. Trump cannot handle even mild pushback from his own party. When your own committee chairman can't ask basic budget questions without

triggering a multi-hour meltdown that includes veiled threats, that's not leadership, that's instability. The reaction from Republican lawmakers was immediate and unprecedented. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has criticized Trump before, issued a statement on December 4th calling his behavior unacceptable and saying it was time for serious conversations about whether Trump should continue in office. That alone would be significant, but she wasn't alone.

According to MSNBC's Capitol Hill reporters, Senator Mitt Romney went further, stating publicly that Trump's posts were dangerous, potentially criminal, and that the president needed to resign for the good of the country. Romney called Trump's behavior

a threat to Democratic governance, and said Republicans could no longer ignore what was happening. Now, this isn't the first time we've seen Trump explode at members of his own party who dare to question him. Just think about how he turned on Mitch McConnell after the 2020 election. McConnell had been one of Trump's most effective allies, confirming judges, blocking Democratic legislation, defending Trump through

impeachment. But when McConnell acknowledged Biden's victory and refused to back Trump's election fraud claims, Trump spent months attacking him. He called McConnell a dour, sullen, unsmiling political hack. He nicknamed him Old Crow. He actively tried to recruit primary challengers against McConnell allies. All that loyalty, all those years of support, meant nothing the moment McConnell refused to violate his constitutional oath. Then there was his treatment of Mike Rounds, the senator from South Dakota.

Rounds is about as conservative and pro-Trump as they come, a reliable vote for Trump's agenda on everything. But in January 2022, Rounds said in an interview that the 2020 election was fair and legitimate. That was it. One truthful statement about election integrity. Trump immediately issued a statement calling Rounds a jerk, stupid, and a rhino. He said Rounds would never have been elected without Trump's endorsement. For telling the truth once, Rounds became an enemy. And let's not forget

what happened to Liz Cheney. She voted with Trump over 90% of the time during his presidency. She was the third ranking Republican in House leadership, a staunch conservative with impeccable Republican credentials, but she voted to impeach Trump after January 6th and joined the committee investigating the attack. Trump made destroying her political career

his personal mission. He recruited a primary challenger, campaigned against her relentlessly, and successfully removed her from Congress. Her crime was prioritizing constitutional duty over personal loyalty to Trump.

Even Kevin McCarthy discovered that loyalty to Trump has limits. McCarthy literally flew to Mar-a-Lago after January 6th to repair his relationship with Trump. He defended Trump constantly, blocked investigations, gave Tucker Carlson exclusive access to January 6th footage, everything Trump wanted.

But when hardline Trump supporters voted McCarthy out as Speaker, Trump didn't lift a finger to save him. Years of absolute loyalty bought McCarthy nothing when he actually needed Trump's help. Now it's Tom Cole and other budget committee members joining this list. The pattern is unmistakable.

You can show Trump complete loyalty, vote for his agenda every single time, defend him through every controversy, but the moment you do your actual job as a legislator, the moment you ask a question or state an inconvenient truth, Trump views it as betrayal and comes after you with everything he has. So what specifically did Trump post that crossed the line from political criticism into dangerous territory?

Let's break it down. According to legal experts who reviewed the posts, Trump's language contained several elements that raised serious concerns. First, he used the word traitors repeatedly to describe elected officials. In Trump's previous rhetoric, calling someone a traitor has often preceded violence against that person by his supporters.

When Trump calls someone a traitor, his base understands it as permission to target them. Second, Trump wrote that these lawmakers need to be dealt with and suggested that patriots know what needs to be done. Legal analysts told CNN that this kind of language, especially directed at specific individuals by someone with Trump's following, could constitute incitement. It's not an explicit call to violence, but it's clearly suggesting that his supporters should take action against named individuals. Now here's the kicker.

Trump also posted the office phone numbers of several lawmakers he was attacking, along with encouragement for his supporters to let them know what real Americans think. Within hours, according to reports from congressional offices, those lawmakers were receiving hundreds of threatening calls. Staff members reported callers saying the representatives should be hanged for treason, should be shot, should watch their backs.

Capitol Police had to increase security for multiple members based on the volume and severity of threats. This left Republican leadership in an extraordinarily difficult position. On one side, they need to maintain their relationship

with Trump and his base. The MAGA wing of the party is extremely powerful, and crossing Trump publicly can end political careers. Republican primaries are won and lost based on Trump's endorsement. The base demands absolute loyalty to Trump, and any criticism is seen as betrayal. On the flip side, they have members of their own caucus being threatened, receiving death

threats, requiring enhanced security, all because they asked legitimate questions during a hearing. They have a constitutional duty to conduct oversight. They can't just rubber stamp every presidential proposal without asking questions. That's not how Congress is supposed to work. And they're watching Trump's behavior escalate in ways that even his supporters find concerning.

The tricky part is there's no safe middle ground. Republican leaders can either defend their members and condemn Trump's posts, which means facing his wrath and potentially losing their own positions. Or they can stay silent and hope it blows over, but that means abandoning their colleagues and normalizing presidential threats against Congress. Neither option is politically survivable

without significant cost. Legal and political analysts are noting that Trump's posts may have crossed into criminal territory. Joyce Vance, former US attorney and current legal analyst, appeared on MSNBC on December 4th and explained that threatening members of Congress

to influence their official actions is a federal crime. She noted that while Trump has a First Amendment right to criticize lawmakers, directing his followers to target specific individuals with language suggesting they should be dealt with potentially violates 18 U.S. Code section 115, which prohibits threatening federal officials. Andrew Weissman, former FBI General Counsel and Mueller investigation prosecutor, went even further. He told viewers that Trump's pattern of posting threats

followed by his supporters taking action creates a direct causal link. Weissman pointed to January 6th as the clearest example. Trump told supporters to fight, they fought. Trump told them to march to the Capitol, they marched. When Trump says lawmakers need to be dealt with, people who follow his instructions

will attempt to deal with them. Even some conservative legal voices expressed alarm. Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor who has defended Trump through multiple controversies, stated on Fox News that Trump's posts were reckless and potentially illegal. He said that a president cannot use his platform to intimidate Congress and that Trump's specific language about patriots knowing what to do was dangerous given the violence we've already seen from Trump

supporters. So let's break down what this could mean because it's not just another Trump controversy. It has serious consequences for governance, party unity, and democratic norms. First up is the immediate governing crisis. How does Congress conduct oversight when asking questions triggers presidential meltdowns and death threats? Republican members now have to calculate whether fulfilling their constitutional duties is worth the personal risk to themselves and their families. That's not a functioning democracy. That's rule by intimidation. According to Politico's

reporting from December 5th, several Republican committee members privately told leadership they're reconsidering their willingness to hold hearings or ask tough questions. They have families. They've seen what happens when Trump targets someone. The risk isn't theoretical anymore. Looking ahead to broader political implications, this is causing a genuine fracture in the Republican Party. You've got the MAGA base that believes any criticism

of Trump is betrayal and that threatened lawmakers probably deserve it for not being loyal enough. Then you've got traditional conservatives who believe in constitutional governance, separation of powers, and congressional oversight. These two factions are increasingly incompatible.

Moderate Republicans and those in competitive districts are watching colleagues get death threats for doing their jobs. Some are genuinely asking whether staying in politics is worth it. Others are quietly considering

whether they can continue enabling Trump's behavior. But beyond the immediate political crisis, this is about fundamental democratic principles. Congress is a co-equal branch of government. Legislators are supposed to question, investigate, and provide oversight of the executive.

When a president responds to oversight with threats and intimidation, when his followers target lawmakers with violence, the entire constitutional structure breaks down. If this behavior is normalized, if Trump faces no consequences for threatening members of

Congress, then we've established a precedent that presidents can intimidate the legislative branch into submission. That's not a republic of laws. That's authoritarian rule. This whole scenario is causing panic throughout establishment Republican circles. According to the New York Times reporting from December 5th, multiple Republican senators

held an emergency meeting to discuss what they're privately calling the Trump problem. Participants in that meeting, speaking anonymously, said there's genuine concern that Trump's behavior is spiraling and that the party needs to decide whether to continue defending him or whether protecting democracy requires them to break with him publicly. The problem is that breaking with Trump likely means losing their next primary, but continuing to enable his behavior means watching American democracy deteriorate in real time.

It's an impossible choice, and the clock is ticking. Meanwhile, on the other side, Democrats are watching this Republican civil war with a mixture of concern and calculation. They're genuinely worried about the threats against members of Congress and the broader implications for governance, but they're also recognizing this as a massive political opportunity. When Republicans are calling for Trump's resignation, when his own party members are receiving death threats

for asking budget questions, Democrats don't need to make the case against Trump. Republicans are making it for them. Things became even more intense when Trump doubled down. Rather than backing off after the initial backlash, Trump posted again on December 5th,

this time attacking the Republican senators who called for his resignation. He called Romney a stone-cold loser and said Murkowski was always a traitor who should be expelled from the party. He then posted that any Republican who calls for his resignation is finished in politics and will face primary challenges from real America First candidates.

This response revealed everything about Trump's psychology. Rather than recognizing that he'd crossed a line, rather than attempting to de-escalate or repair relationships, Trump's instinct was to attack harder, threaten more severely, and demand absolute submission. It's about so much more than just Trump's latest social media meltdown. It's about whether elected officials can do their constitutional jobs without facing presidential threats and mob violence.

If Trump can intimidate Congress into silence through threats and attacks, then we've lost the separation of powers that makes democratic government possible. This isn't just about one unstable president. It's about whether America's constitutional system can survive a leader who views any

questioning as betrayal and any oversight as grounds for retaliation. The question is whether we're a nation of laws where all officials, including the president, are accountable to constitutional processes, or whether we're sliding toward a system where power is maintained through loyalty, intimidation, and the threat of violence. So here's the deal. Donald Trump responded to routine budget questions from his own party by launching a multi-day

social media tirade that included apparent threats against sitting members of Congress, leading Republican lawmakers to publicly call for his resignation for the first time. This isn't just about Trump having a bad day or being thin-skinned about criticism. It's about whether Congress can function as a co-equal branch of government when the president responds to oversight with threats that generate death threats against legislators. When members of your own party are saying you need to resign because your behavior threatens democratic governance, we've entered

genuinely unprecedented territory. If Trump faces no consequences for this, if he can continue threatening lawmakers who ask questions, then we're establishing that presidents are above congressional oversight and can rule through intimidation. That would mean the constitutional system

of checks and balances has failed. So, keep an eye on this. More Republican lawmakers are reportedly considering whether to join resignation calls. Trump's posts remain active and his supporters continue targeting the lawmakers he named. Capitol police are monitoring threats and evaluating whether additional security measures are needed. The stakes have never been higher, the threats never more explicit,

are needed. The stakes have never been higher, the threats never more explicit, and the future of congressional independence never more uncertain.