The Government of Shadows, By Chris Knight (Florida)

Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota, recently proposed the idea of forming a "shadow government" during a town hall in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, on March 28, 2025. He suggested this as a response to what he perceives as the Trump administration's efforts to "restrict the vote," specifically citing an executive order requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. Walz's vision includes holding "alternate press conferences" to present what he calls "the truth" about the administration's actions. Critics argue this proposal shows a contempt for democracy, and here's why that perspective holds weight.

Democracy hinges on the acceptance of electoral outcomes and the legitimacy of the government chosen by the people. In the 2024 election, Donald Trump and JD Vance won decisively with 312 electoral votes to Kamala Harris and Walz's 226, alongside Republican gains in Congress. Walz's call for a shadow government—an unelected, parallel structure to challenge the elected administration—can be seen as a refusal to respect that mandate. Instead of working within democratic norms, like opposition through legislative channels or public debate, he's advocating for a separate entity to undermine the government's authority. This sidesteps the will of voters who, just months ago, made their choice clear.

The term "shadow government" itself evokes a deliberate attempt to subvert the official system. In the UK, and Australia, "shadow cabinet" is a formal opposition within parliament, not a rogue operation. Walz's version, with its own press conferences to counter official policy, sounds more like a propaganda arm than a legitimate critique. Democracy thrives on open discourse, not duelling narratives from self-appointed truth-tellers. By implying the elected government can't be trusted and needs a constant counterweight outside normal checks and balances, he's dismissing the mechanisms, courts, media, elections, that already exist to hold power accountable.

His reasoning also rings hollow. The executive order he opposes aims to enforce existing federal law against non-citizen voting, a measure polls show most Americans support for election integrity. Framing it as voter suppression, then using it to justify a shadow government, suggests a rejection of majority sentiment rather than an engagement with it. If Walz believes the policy's wrong, he could rally voters or lawmakers against it, democratic avenues he's bypassing for something more theatrical and less accountable.

On the flip side, Walz might argue he's defending democracy by exposing what he sees as authoritarian moves. He's not calling for armed rebellion but a louder opposition voice, which could be framed as free speech. Yet this defence crumbles under scrutiny: the Democratic Party already has vast media influence and political platforms to make its case. A shadow government isn't a megaphone, it's a power grab dressed as principle. If he truly valued democracy, he'd trust the system to self-correct through elections and public opinion, not invent a workaround because his side lost.

Walz's proposal reeks of hypocrisy too. Democrats, including him, spent years warning Trump threatens democracy. Now, with defeat, he's floating a plan that mirrors the very undermining of institutions he decried. It's not about protecting the vote, it's about rejecting the outcome when it doesn't favour him. That's not democratic grit; it's contempt for the process he claims to uphold. The American people voted. Walz doesn't get to rewrite the rules because he dislikes the result.