Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is trolling President Donald Trump. She just sent him a letter (which she then immediately released to the public, for maximum impact) suggesting that the upcoming State Of The Union speech be either: postponed until the government is open once again, given from the Oval Office on television, or just written down by the White House and sent over to Congress. This is obviously designed to do nothing short of getting under the president's skin, but at the same time it is indeed a real threat, since Pelosi actually does have the power to deny Trump the chance to give his annual speech. Officially, the speaker invites the president and then somewhat later (often mere days before the speech) the House and Senate pass an official invitation which schedules the event. Pelosi has already informally invited Trump to speak on January 29th, but Congress has not yet officially acted. If Pelosi doesn't allow a floor vote, then the official invitation will never happen and the speech will essentially be cancelled. Such is the power of having the majority in the House.

It probably won't get that far, but these days you never know. If Pelosi denies Trump the chance to speak to the full Congress, then perhaps Mitch McConnell will invite him to speak only to the Senate, in retaliation. If this is the way things work out, I would fully expect most every Senate Democrat would decline to attend such a speech. But again, I doubt it'll get to that point.

Trump supporters were quick to decry Pelosi's move, although as of this writing Trump hasn't blasted Pelosi on Twitter yet, so we'll see what the "official" response turns out to be. But for those invoking the supposed sanctity of this speech, historians were quick to point out two important historical facts: (1) the Constitution does not actually require such a speech, and (2) we went for over 100 years of our history where presidents did indeed just write down their speech and send it to Congress. Of course, that entire century was before the dawn of commercial radio, much less of television or the internet. From Thomas Jefferson to William H. Taft, there simply was no speech at all, just a written laundry list of legislative priorities that the president would send to Congress in the hopes of them actually passing a few of them.

As for the Constitution, the reality of what is actually required was perhaps best summed up in an episode of The West Wing, where C..J. asks Toby: "Should we postpone the State Of The Union? What are the rules on that?" and Toby -- quite correctly -- answers back: "He's required to give Congress information on the state of the Union. If he buys Congress a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, he's fulfilled his Constitutional [duty]." The actual phrase from the Constitution reads: "He [the president] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." That's it. Doesn't say a word about a speech at all. George Washington started the tradition of personally delivering an annual message to Congress, but as noted this tradition was soon changed by the third president, Thomas Jefferson, into merely sending a document to Congress instead. This continued until 1913, when Woodrow Wilson decided to revive the original tradition of personally giving a speech. But even an annual message is not required, as "from time to time" is about as vague a phrase as can be imagined.

But getting back to the current situation, it would indeed be extraordinary if a speaker of the House denied a president the chance to address a joint session of Congress. Then again, these are extraordinary times. We've never had a State Of The Union speech given while the government is shut down before, so one way or another this could be an unprecedented event. As for Republicans whining about "civility in Washington" and "keeping to congressional traditions," well, I have two words for them: Merrick Garland. Democrats would not be the first to weaponize Congress in unprecedented ways, in other words. Pelosi would just be showing that two can play at such games. And missing one speech is not all that consequential in the grand scheme of things, whereas denying a Supreme Court justice appointment is.

Even before Pelosi's move today, the speech was going to be problematic. There are really only a few ways it could have happened: during a continued shutdown, after Democrats gave in to Trump on the wall in order to reopen the government, or after Trump either gave in or was forced to open the government with no wall money. Any of those three would result in a -- shall we say -- lively speech by Donald Trump. In the first case, Trump would spend the whole speech railing against Democrats for not caving in to his demands -- demands his own Republican Congress couldn't manage to pass in two whole years, mind you. Plus a whole bunch of fearmongering about brown people at the border. It'd be that eight-minute Oval Office speech last week on steroids, in other words. In the second case, Trump would spend the entire speech bragging about how he had beaten the Democrats into submission, and how that was now going to be the new reality for the next two years. In the third case, if Trump had already caved, it certainly would have been entertaining to see how he twisted this into some sort of "win" for his side. I certainly wouldn't put it past Trump to make such an attempt, but the real question is whether he'd convince Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh or not.

Today, Pelosi sent a shot across Trump's bow. She has the capability to deny Trump his speech altogether, although she did not explicitly say so or even threaten such a thing in her letter. She makes the case that because all the security forces (Department of Homeland Security, the Secret Service) are currently working for no pay, this would increase the risk of providing security for the big night. This is obviously just an excuse, but at this point who really cares? Pelosi is playing hardball, which is what really matters. Pelosi politely suggests that Trump postpone his speech, deliver it to a camera in the Oval Office, or just write it down and send it over. Without once mentioning it explicitly, Pelosi is telling Trump that until the government reopens there will be no speech. If the government does reopen, then (and only then) maybe she'll reschedule it.

This is designed to enrage Trump, quite obviously. But at this point, Pelosi and the Democrats have the public solidly on their side in the shutdown battle. Poll after poll shows a majority of the public blame Trump and the Republicans for the shutdown, not Pelosi or the Democrats. So most people are probably going to react with some version of: "Serves him right, for denying paychecks to 800,000 people." Why have some fake "business as usual" grand photo op when business is about as far from usual as can be imagined? Pelosi is using both a carrot and a stick here -- Trump can have his speech if he reopens the government, but if he doesn't, then no speech for you, pal.

This is precisely why Nancy Pelosi was the best Democratic candidate for speaker in the first place. She knows how to play the game of politics even when it turns into hardball, and she has a backbone made out of titanium. As an added benefit, she obviously knows how to effectively troll Trump. That may sound juvenile, but in the end it may wind up being the most important skill Democrats need over the next two years. Oh, and meanwhile, Pelosi moved forward a bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, proving that baiting Trump can indeed be accomplished while at the same time doing the people's legislative business.

Nobody knows how any of this will end, of course, but Pelosi just raised the stakes for Trump. If he continues to refuse to budge, then he will not get his big speech. He will not get to see Republicans leaping to their feet to applaud his every utterance. He will not get any television ratings at all. And for Trump, the most important thing imaginable is whatever is on television at the moment. So denying him his big televised speech hits him where it hurts him the most. Which is why Pelosi using it to troll him is nothing short of brilliant.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant