There’s nothing like politics to destroy a man’s popularity. When President Trump first nominated Jay Clayton to serve as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in June, even Senate Democrats praised the former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Six chaotic weeks later, the U.S. Senate finally confirmed Clayton in the post with a slim majority of 51 votes for, 47 against.

“Having known and worked with Jay for years, I was encouraged when he was first nominated for the position of DNI,” said Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Unfortunately, I came away from his confirmation process with serious reservations about whether he would be willing to stand up to political pressure when it matters most.”

Six weeks earlier, Democrats were at least willing to accept Clayton’s nomination as DNI to avoid someone they saw as worse. President Trump initially nominated Federal Housing Finance Agency Bill Pulte, an attack dog who used his post to take aim at Trump adversaries such as New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

However, when the Pulte pick provoked an uproar, Trump named Pulte as acting DNI and nominated Clayton to the permanent position. Trump hoped to create both a carrot and a stick to push Democrats into approving Clayton as soon as possible. (As it would happen, Pulte used his temporary tenure to implement four rounds of layoffs among intelligence staff, with the most recent round coming on Sunday, less than 48 hours before Clayton’s confirmation.)

Unfortunately, the most immediate effect of Trump’s personnel decisions was to derail a bipartisan deal to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the most effective tool in the DNI’s arsenal. Senate Democrats adamantly refused to grant such power to a man they both despised and feared. Democrats insisted on Clayton’s confirmation as a prerequisite to any future FISA deal, to deny Pulte an opportunity to use its power.

But, when the tire met the tar, Senate Democrats apparently pulled out of the deal altogether. “Democrats were so worked up over the president’s temporary choice for this position, they allowed our nation’s most important counterterrorism tool to go dark for the first time ever,” complained an incensed Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), who had worked hard to negotiate with Democrats.

“Now Democrats have the opportunity to replace that acting official,” Thune continued. “But they’re in no apparent rush to confirm a permanent director of national intelligence. They’ve opposed his nomination in committee. They’ve delayed things here on the floor.”

Thune accused Senate Democrats of “playing the same partisan games with this qualified nominee as they have for so many of President Trump’s picks.”

Every single Democrat lined up to vote against Clayton’s confirmation, and the latest reports from Capitol Hill suggest that Democrats are in no hurry to reauthorize FISA now that Clayton has been installed.

What changed? Why did Democrats go from supporting to opposing a relatively unobjectionable Trump pick? Why are they suddenly in no hurry to put a critical intelligence-gathering tool back online?

Has the world suddenly become a safer, kinder place since early June, making national security a less urgent priority? On the contrary, the collapse of President Trump’s Memorandum of Understanding with Iran has plunged the U.S. military back into open conflict, with an enemy that has vowed to assassinate the president.

Were Democrats really that outraged about Clayton dodging a question about the 2020 election in his confirmation hearing? Some senators, such as Warner, have given that as the reason, but it is likely not a serious one. The DNI serves at the pleasure of the president, so anyone with the slightest understanding of Trump’s character and motives understands why Clayton had to dodge that question to keep the job for which he had been nominated. To put it differently, the 2020 election has already been flogged to death, and Trump’s stance is well-known.If this was a deal-breaking issue, it did not become one merely because of how one nominee answered a question.

No, readers searching for a motive for the about-face of Senate Democrats must look elsewhere. One plausible explanation for anything in Congress is politics. FISA authorization expired on June 12. On June 23, 11 days later, socialist-aligned candidates endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani knocked off three incumbent Democratic representatives in New York City’s Democratic primaries. The party’s socialist fringe is now threatening other primary victories from Colorado to Wisconsin.

The Democratic Party establishment is terrified by this show of force by the radicals within, and they appear powerless to stop them.

It seems plausible, then, that the instinct for political survival has intervened in Senate Democrats’ negotiations. By negotiating with Republicans for FISA reauthorization and DNI Jay Clayton, Senate Democrats had temporarily overlooked Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’s (D-N.Y.) new slogan, “maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.”

This political lapse made Senate Democrats as vulnerable on their left flank as the intelligence lapse of FISA made the United States vulnerable to foreign actors. They therefore resolved on a full factory reset: oppose Trump at every turn.

This explanation has at least three virtues. It explains the timing of the Democratic about-face. It accords with their established track record. And it is simple and straightforward.

“I came away from his confirmation process with serious reservations about whether he would be willing to stand up to political pressure when it matters most,” Warner said of Clayton. “Now that he has been confirmed, I sincerely hope he proves those concerns unfounded, because the Intelligence Community deserves steadier leadership than it has received in recent months.” If Clayton does prove to be a steady and serious DNI, the credit will go entirely to the strength of his own character, not to any gratitude owed to Senate Democrats.