Trump should resign because the midterm repudiation and his unfitness make resignation best for him, his party and the country
Source: Andrew Sullivan. "Resign, Mr President." November 6, 2026. andrewsullivan.substack.com
The Gist
The author says the voters just delivered a huge, historic rejection of Trump, and that it's mostly his own doing because of broken promises, corruption, and an inability to govern properly. Since he won't adapt and will likely make the next two years worse for everyone, the author argues the best thing for him, his party, and the country is to resign.
Conclusion
President Trump should resign, because resigning is the best option for himself, the Republican Party, and the country.
Premises
- The midterm elections produced a historically large margin against the president's party, which amounts to a broad public repudiation of him personally.
- Needed for the conclusion
- The margin is a real fact, granted by A5. Its reading as personal repudiation depends on A1.
- The defeat was caused by the president himself, through broken promises (no new wars, a better economy, targeted immigration enforcement, free speech, fiscal restraint, anti-corruption), alleged corruption and self-enrichment, and damage to alliances, to his coalition, and to the rule of law.
- Needed for the conclusion
- The single-cause attribution is asserted. Some listed conduct is real, but its share of the swing is not shown.
- The result works like a vote of no confidence. In a parliamentary system he would be removed, so his democratic legitimacy has collapsed and the public lacks confidence in his handling of wars, the economy, AI, and the rule of law.
- Needed for the conclusion
- Unresolved objection: The US system deliberately separates tenure from legislative confidence, so the parliamentary analogy supplies no obligation to resign.
- The analogy borrows a parliamentary rule and the claimed issue-specific lack of confidence is read into a single vote with no polling.
- He is temperamentally and cognitively unfit to govern within the constitutional system. He cannot compromise, adapt, or follow the rule of law, and he shows signs of mental and physical decline.
- His response to the defeat (naming Stephen Miller chief of staff, doubling down on the war and immigration policies voters rejected) shows he will not adapt, as Obama and Clinton did after their midterm losses.
- Needed for the conclusion
- One personnel choice is too thin to establish an inability to adapt across two years.
- If he stays, he faces a politically miserable two years (street protests, very low approval, possible impeachment with Republican votes), his party will be further damaged, and the country will suffer further disastrous and irreversible decisions.
- Needed for the conclusion
- Predictions of protests, impeachment, party damage and irreversible harm are unquantified and ignore existing institutional checks.
- Resignation is feasible and has precedent, since leaders (even a Pope) have stepped down after losing public support.
Assumptions
- A midterm result can be read as a verdict on the president personally rather than on issues, the electoral cycle, or the opposition's strengths.
- Needed for the conclusion
- Midterms are commonly read as referendums on the president, but the thermostatic cycle and opposition strength are plausible competing causes.
- Would be settled by: Evidence isolating the personal component of the vote from the normal midterm penalty, issues and opposition strength.
- A US president, though not subject to a parliamentary no-confidence vote, has a moral or political obligation to step down when public support collapses.
- Needed for the conclusion
- The duty to resign under fixed terms is stated and not argued, and past presidents who lost midterms served on.
- The president will not or cannot change course, so staying will produce the same or worse outcomes.
- Needed for the conclusion
- It is a forecast resting on one appointment. It is in tension with the argument's own expectation that pressure will bite.
- Would be settled by: How the president actually governs and appoints over the coming months compared with the Obama and Clinton post-midterm pattern.
- Resignation would leave the party and country better off than the alternatives, including how a successor would govern.
- Needed for the conclusion
- Unresolved objection: A successor could continue the same policies more effectively, and a forced exit could split the party or create a grievance narrative.
- No analysis of a successor's conduct, base reaction, party fracture or the precedent set is given, though the 'best' claim depends on it.
- The author's factual claims about the election margin, policies, corruption, and the president's health are accurate.
- Needed for the conclusion
- Granted as given context. It covers the facts but not the inferences drawn from them.
- The president's own interests are served by leaving, and he can be persuaded by an appeal to those interests.
- Needed for the conclusion
- Unresolved objection: The premises that he cannot adapt or reason, together with his incentives to stay, cut against the idea that an appeal to his interests will move him.
- The claim that leaving serves his interests ignores his incentives to stay, and it conflicts with the claim that he cannot adapt or be persuaded.