By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Stephen Colbert criticized House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries for his call for Democrats to stage a “silent defiance” during President Trump’s State of the Union address, dubbing it “a bold rebrand of doing jack squat.” Despite this directive, many Democratic lawmakers still protested through walkouts and visible displays, such as Representative Al Green holding a sign addressing racist rhetoric. Others skipped the address entirely, opting for a counter-event on the National Mall. The article also notes the upcoming end of Colbert’s show, The Late Show, in May 2026, with speculation suggesting financial motivations and possible appeasement of Trump.
Read the original article here
Stephen Colbert, never one to shy away from a sharp critique, recently took aim at top Democrat Hakeem Jeffries, particularly over the latter’s strategy for the State of the Union address. Colbert’s jab, describing Jeffries’ approach as “a bold rebrand of doing jack squat,” really cuts to the heart of a frustration many seem to feel about the Democratic Party’s perceived lack of forceful opposition. The essence of Colbert’s criticism is that Jeffries encouraged Democrats to either attend the address with a “silent defiance” or to hold a counter-event, but importantly, to avoid making a scene if they did attend. This, in Colbert’s eyes, amounts to a particularly uninspired form of protest, a rebranding of inaction.
The sentiment that silent protest, or any form of inaction, is essentially a waste of time and energy is a recurring theme. For many, sitting and appearing stern while a political opponent speaks, even if they are perceived to be lying, is akin to receiving a participation trophy for simply showing up. The argument is that projecting strength and actively attacking the opposing side for their perceived failures and incompetence is far more effective than a stoic, passive stance. Trying to appear as the smartest person in the room, without any tangible action to back it up, can come across as weak, and in politics, weakness rarely garners respect.
Some observers feel that Democrats have a tendency to miss opportunities to effectively challenge their opponents. There’s a sense that at certain moments, like when the opposing party was seen as “weird” and their lies were being amplified, Democrats had a chance to rally support by directly calling out these behaviors. However, this momentum seemed to dissipate, with a suggestion to “dial back the ‘weird’ talk” and more tepid responses. This hesitation to engage aggressively is seen by some as a missed opportunity, allowing the opposing side to regain footing.
The core of the issue, as articulated by Colbert and echoed by many, is the feeling that the Democratic Party’s leadership is not sufficiently opposing what they perceive as a grave threat. The idea that attending speeches or participating in certain political rituals lends legitimacy to an event that perhaps doesn’t deserve it is a powerful one. It’s suggested that this participation, even with silent defiance, allows the “circus” to continue with an air of legitimacy that is undeserved. When the alternative is to be completely absent or to stage a protest that is quickly removed, the middle ground of silent observance can feel like a surrender.
The criticism extends to the broader Democratic establishment, with some feeling that the party’s leaders are more interested in internal political maneuvering and “insider trading” than in truly fighting for the people. The low approval ratings for Democrats are, in this view, a direct consequence of leaders making it clear that their intention is to “do nothing.” This sentiment is often paired with a cynical view that certain leaders are more concerned with issues like foreign policy funding than with domestic problems, leading to a sense of detachment and ineffectiveness.
It’s also argued that the current political climate demands a more robust and visible form of opposition. The idea that “acting insane” is the tactic of one party, and that the other should maintain decorum, is questioned. If the opposing party is employing aggressive and unconventional tactics, then a purely traditional approach might be seen as insufficient. Some even speculate that a lack of strong opposition might be due to more complex reasons, suggesting that leaders might be beholden to outside influences or even have leverage held against them.
The frustration with the current leadership is palpable, with many calling for a refresh and for leaders who are seen as more fighter-like. The comparison is often made to the perceived strength of opposing leaders, even if their methods are disagreeable. The call is for Democrats to find a way to project strength and fight back effectively, without resorting to tactics that alienate their base or appear weak. The suggestion that leadership needs to “evolve” and adapt to the current political warfare is a consistent refrain.
Ultimately, the criticism leveled by Stephen Colbert against Hakeem Jeffries and the “silent defiance” strategy highlights a deep-seated concern within the Democratic Party and among its supporters. It’s a call for more than just passive resistance; it’s a demand for visible, impactful opposition that demonstrates a genuine fight against what many perceive as an existential threat to democratic values. The “bold rebrand of doing jack squat” is a sharp, satirical indictment of a strategy that, for many, feels like a failure to meet the moment.