

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The administration had allocated $20 million in public funds to pay for ads celebrating Trump weeks before the midterms.
Less than a week before Election Day, another federal judge on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from using taxpayer funds to run ads promoting the president.
US district judge Loren AliKhan froze the White House Office of Management and Budget’s $20 million allocation to run the ads, saying the administration likely “used public dollars to unlawfully finance a national media campaign in the final weeks before the November 2026 elections.”
The ruling follows a lawsuit filed earlier this month by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which accused President Donald Trump of using funds to “finance a national propaganda campaign.”
The ads, which stated that they were “paid for by the US government,” attacked Trump’s enemies as “Marxists,” celebrated his military operations in Iran and Venezuela, and promoted his personal declaration that his presidency marked the beginning of a “golden age of America.” Another ad that was reportedly prepared but never aired declared that “God made Trump.”
Following public outcry over the ads, Trump promised that future ads would be paid for with money he raised for his super political action committee MAGA Inc.
“That promise went unfulfilled,” wrote AliKhan, an appointee of former President Joe Biden. “The ads continued to air with the ‘Paid for by the US government’ disclosure for at least another week.”
The US Department of Justice has also acknowledged that the ads continued to run hundreds of times after a court order issued on October 11 requiring them to be canceled.
Federal law prohibits using federal appropriations for “publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.”
The DNC argued that the administration's use of public funds illegally “deprives the DNC of a fair electoral process by adding public funds to the resources available to support Republican candidates.”
AliKhan agreed that there was "little doubt that defendants’ unlawful use of public funds makes it more difficult for the DNC to achieve its mission of ‘electing Democratic candidates in federal, state, and local elections across the country.’”
“The court just delivered a victory for the rule of law and for American taxpayers," DNC chair Ken Martin said following the ruling on Wednesday. "Trump and his administration can no longer misuse Americans’ hard-earned dollars to run political ads while working families can’t even afford to pay for their gas and groceries."
Martin added that “Trump’s illegal and desperate attempt to save his cratering approval ratings ahead of the midterm elections only underscores how out of touch he is with the American people, who will hold him and Republicans accountable for their destructive agenda at the ballot box next week.”
"Trump is misusing millions of taxpayer dollars to fund pure propaganda ads in a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November—so we're suing him," said the DNC chair.
The Democratic National Committee sued President Donald Trump and parts of his administration on Wednesday over a series of recent taxpayer-funded video advertisements that the complaint calls "a blatant violation of the statutory ban on the use of appropriations for 'publicity or propaganda purposes.'"
"President Trump personally directed this illegal activity," notes the DNC complaint, which was filed in federal court in Washington, DC and also names the White House Office, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as defendants.
"The White House Office crafted the partisan campaign. The Office of Management and Budget shifted $20 million to pay for it. And US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has carried it out," the complaint continues. DHS is the parent agency of CBP.
"These unlawful actions are ultra vires and violate the Administrative Procedure Act," the DNC asserted.
The lawsuit comes after the watchdog group Public Citizen last week filed a pair of complaints urging regulators and broadcasters to pull the taxpayer-funded ads off the air and demanding a federal investigation, arguing that they "appear to violate the federal law against using taxpayer funds to finance propaganda (5 USC §3107) and related provisions of the appropriations laws as well as the Hatch Act (5 USC §7324)."
Wednesday's filing highlights that the ads—which have aired on a range of channels in the lead-up to next month's congressional election—tout Trump "and his midterm messaging, including one that is virtually identical to a 2024 campaign ad."
The DNC "is working to defeat President Trump's allies at the polls in all 50 states, up and down the ballot, and shares a unity of interests with Democratic candidates," the complaint says. "The Trump administration's illegal use of taxpayer dollars for campaign-style advertisements deprives the DNC of a fair electoral process by adding public funds to the resources available to support Republican candidates."
"The use of public funds also places the DNC and Democratic candidates at an electoral disadvantage, even though the publicly funded propaganda advertisements are deeply unpopular with American voters, by preserving funds held by campaign committees and PACs—including MAGA Inc.—for other political expenditures," the filing says, referring to political action committees.
In the face of "intense bipartisan backlash," Trump announced Monday that he was planning to have his super PAC MAGA Inc. pay for ads "moving forward," the document points out—"and yet for the next two days, the ads have continued to air, still labeled 'Paid for by the US Government.'"
As The Associated Press reported: "On Tuesday, the fifth ad in the campaign began airing with the notice, 'Paid for by the US Government,' promoting Trump's military actions in Venezuela earlier this year. The same day, Trump made it clear he hasn't committed to reimbursing any money that has already been spent, telling reporters, 'We'll decide.'"
The complaint says that "with less than 30 days remaining before the midterm election and millions of public dollars apportioned to pay for propaganda ads still unspent, the DNC has no choice but to take action in defense of free and fair elections."
While the defendants haven't yet commented on the suit, DNC Chair Ken Martin said that "Donald Trump is misusing millions of taxpayer dollars to fund pure propaganda ads in a last-ditch attempt to save Republicans in November—so we're suing him."
"As gas and grocery costs rise and his approval numbers continue to crater, this president has stooped to taking money from a fund intended for memorials for Americans killed in the line of duty to promote his failed policies," he continued—as other Democrats also made moves to call out the GOP's "failed economic agenda" and fears mounted about how the president may try to interfere with the November midterms.
According to Martin, "Americans deserve better than to have their hard-earned tax dollars used for Trump's illegal schemes."
"Trump promised to protect Social Security, but he continues to turn his back on everyday Americans and go after lifelines that millions of people rely on," said a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday opened up a new line of attack for Democrats when he talked about his desire to privatize Social Security.
Even though Trump repeatedly said during his three runs for the White House that he wouldn't touch Social Security, the president on Wednesday told reporters in the Oval Office that he "wanted to ride with Social Security being fully invested in the stock market in the first month of my first year."
"Had we done that," Trump continued, "Social Security right now would be the richest entity anywhere in the world. But that was met with tremendous criticism by the Democrats and some Republicans because, you know, they felt it was risky... I wanted to do it so badly."
Trump: I wanted to ride with Social Security being fully invested in the stock market in the first month of my first year, so 2016. I was met with tremendous criticism by the Democrats and some Republicans. I wanted to do it so badly. https://t.co/bylHyMBqJM
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 7, 2026
The Bulwark reporter Sam Stein wrote in a Wednesday social media post that Trump's remarks were "peculiar," as he "ran explicitly on not touching social security and now invites attacks that he may try to."
Kendall Witmer, deputy communications director at the Democratic National Committee, seized on Trump's statement about privatizing Social Security, which he linked to the economic struggles Americans are facing thanks to the president's illegal war with Iran.
“As working families struggle to make ends meet in Donald Trump's economy," Witmer said, "Trump is openly admitting that he wants to privatize Social Security and take away the hard-earned benefits seniors have worked towards their whole lives. Trump promised to protect Social Security, but he continues to turn his back on everyday Americans and go after lifelines that millions of people rely on."
Former President George W. Bush in 2005 made a major push to allow Social Security money to be invested in the stock market. Bush's plan quickly became politically toxic, however, and never even came up for a vote in the US Congress.
After Bush's Social Security plan fell apart, Republicans would go on to lose control of both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate amid voter disapproval of the Iraq War.
Current polling suggests the Trump-led GOP could face a similar fate in next month's midterms. According to polling averages calculated by elections analyst Nate Silver, Democrats currently hold a nine-point lead in the generic congressional ballot.
"Donald Trump started a deadly and costly war with Iran that has driven gas prices through the roof, and Americans are breaking the bank to fill up at the pump."
President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran has achieved a significant milestone, but it's not one that many US voters will likely appreciate.
Data published by the American Automobile Association (AAA) on Monday show that the average price for gas in the US now stands at $4.08 per gallon, or $0.90 per gallon more than the average price one year ago.
Gas prices typically decline throughout summer months, but the spike in oil prices caused by the Iran War has kept prices elevated in August beyond anything seen in prior years.
"For the first time ever, the national average in August has been above $4 per gallon every day," explained AAA. "This month is poised to set a new record as the most expensive August at the pump, surpassing the previous August record set in 2022."
Kendall Witmer, rapid response director for the Democratic National Committee, slammed Trump in a Monday statement where she accused the president of making policy to benefit his fossil fuel industry donors while leaving working-class Americans holding the bag.
"Donald Trump started a deadly and costly war with Iran that has driven gas prices through the roof, and Americans are breaking the bank to fill up at the pump," said Witmer. "Meanwhile, Trump and Big Oil executives who donated to his campaign are profiting off his war, cashing in at the expense of hardworking Americans. In Trump’s world, the rich and powerful come first, while everyday Americans get left in the dust."
High gas prices have become a major political headache for Trump, as a recent analysis estimated that Americans have paid $71.5 billion more to fill up their cars thanks to the president's war.
Meanwhile, a mandated ethics filing released last week shows Trump made more than 1,000 stock transactions in June, including thousands of dollars invested in energy companies profiting off of his war.
CNBC reported on Monday that the president is scheduled to meet with US refiners and fuel distributors as part of an effort to lower gas prices ahead of the midterm elections in November.
"Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza, and we should have the courage to say so," said the California Democrat.
Congressman Ro Khanna said in a speech at the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting on Saturday that the party must support cutting off military assistance to Israel, pointing to the country's ongoing genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip and imposition of an "apartheid system" in the West Bank.
Khanna (D-Calif.), who is considering a presidential run in 2028, told DNC members gathered in Austin, Texas that "Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza, and we should have the courage to say so." The congressman's remark was met with enthusiastic applause.
Khanna, who also said the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel "must be condemned unequivocally," cited his recent trip to the illegally occupied West Bank, where the lawmaker was detained by armed settlers and the Israeli military.
"Zero aid to Israel," Khanna declared Saturday. "No military sales of weapons used to kill civilians. And let me be clear: If our party cannot stand for these principles, it will never convince a generation that watched the horrors of Gaza on their iPhones that we mean what we say about justice."
Khanna's remarks came after the DNC approved by voice vote a package of resolutions that included one calling for full enforcement of the so-called Leahy Laws, which prohibit the transfer of US weaponry to governments credibly accused of human rights violations.
A United Nations commission said last month that "even after the October 2025 ceasefire, children continue to be killed and seriously injured, with continued disregard by Israel for the ceasefire and for the protection owed to Palestinian children under international law."
Recent polling has found that an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters oppose US military aid to Israel, but their representatives in Congress remain divided on the matter. In late July, more than half of the House Democratic caucus—including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—voted against an amendment backed by Khanna that would have cut off $3.3 billion in US assistance to Israel, which has repeatedly used American weapons to commit atrocities against Palestinians.
“Approval of the resolutions... point the way for the Democratic Party to move in directions consistent with what voters want."
As the war for the future of the Democratic Party rages on, progressives took steps toward a pair of key victories at the Democratic National Committee on Thursday, advancing one resolution calling to abolish the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and another in support of barring US military aid for Israel.
The resolutions, which were both introduced by Louisiana DNC member Michele Johnson, were approved during a meeting in Austin by the DNC Resolutions Committee and are expected to be put before the full committee for a vote by Saturday.
Though resolutions passed through the DNC do not bind lawmakers or presidents to take particular actions, they play an important role in legitimizing positions once confined to the margins but which are fast becoming a consensus among Democratic voters.
"While it may not actually push Congress to do something, it sends a message that we believe these things," Johnson said during an interview last week. "Ultimately, these resolutions can be used in the creation of a platform... to guide Democrats for the next four years."
The first resolution “urges Democratic members of Congress to craft legislation abolishing ICE and enacting immigration reform that provides pathways to citizenship, protects workers, and ensures dignity for all impacted people.”
If passed, it would put the party in line with the majority of its voters, 73% of whom said in an Economist/YouGov poll last month that they believe ICE should be abolished.
It's a position that has been adopted by increasing numbers of lawmakers in the party's progressive wing, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), but has been resisted by party leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).
As part of the “mass deportation” crusade during President Donald Trump’s second term, which has resulted in individuals being detained nationwide with little due process, ICE has increasingly relied on indiscriminate raids, warrantless arrests, and racial profiling while setting up a vast network of opaque detention camps with squalid conditions. Most of those rounded up have had no criminal convictions.
As of Thursday, more than 50 people have died in ICE custody since Trump retook office in January 2025, and several more, including multiple US citizens, have been shot during enforcement operations without clear justification.
The resolution "urges Democratic members of Congress to pursue civil and criminal accountability for any federal agent, attorney, or official who lied under oath, misrepresented evidence, or gave false testimony regarding DHS conduct, and to remove qualified immunity and other protections shielding DHS and ICE personnel and subcontractors who have injured protesters or journalists, fired into moving vehicles, or caused deaths in custody, whether of detained individuals, US citizens, or immigrants regardless of nationality or documentation status.“
The other resolution advanced on Thursday states that the DNC supports the "full, consistent, and impartial enforcement" of the so-called "Leahy Laws" to prevent military aid to Israel or any other countries that violate US human rights law.
These laws, named after their sponsor, former Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), state that the US cannot provide training, weapons, equipment, or other assistance to a foreign military unit when the government has credible information that it has committed a “gross violation of human rights.”
Critics have argued that former President Joe Biden violated the Leahy Laws by continuing to provide unrestricted military aid to Israel as it waged a genocidal war in Gaza and escalated its assaults on Palestinians in the West Bank during his presidency. Secretary of State Antony Blinken repeatedly balked at calls, including from within his own State Department, to enforce the Leahy Laws despite mounting evidence of atrocities.
A classified State Department report whose findings were publicized in October 2025 found that the Israeli military had committed hundreds of human rights violations that may have warranted enforcement of the Leahy Laws, including many during the Biden administration.
The resolution advanced on Thursday “calls for strengthened vetting capacity, clear remediation standards," referring to the process by which a military that violates human rights can restore eligibility for US funding, "and regular public reporting on the implementation of the Leahy Laws by the Department of State and the Department of Defense."
The resolution also "encourages Democratic members of Congress to conduct robust oversight of Leahy Law implementation and to support legislative measures that close documented enforcement gaps."
Like with ICE, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers are calling for the US to cut off support for Israel, but party leadership has been resistant. This is despite nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters saying in a May 2026 New York Times/Siena poll that they are opposed to sending more funding.
The passage of the Leahy Law resolution shows how the ground has shifted beneath the Democratic establishment since last August, when the Resolutions Committee blocked a resolution that would call for an arms embargo against Israel in favor of a more limited one pushed by DNC chair Ken Martin, calling for unrestricted aid to Gaza and a two-state solution. Martin later withdrew his resolution, leaving neither as the party's adopted position.
In April, more resolutions, which called for the conditioning of military aid to Israel and the recognition of a Palestinian state, were deferred to a working group. Another resolution condemning the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was also killed by the resolutions panel.
Sam Rosenthal, the political director of the progressive advocacy group RootsAction, attended the committee meeting on Thursday. His group promoted both resolutions, including by sponsoring a mobile billboard that circled outside the conference, which read, “HEY DNC, UPHOLD THE LEAHY LAWS. SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS!”
"These were twin victories for human rights, at home and abroad,” Rosenthal said of the votes on Thursday. “Approval of the resolutions for abolishing ICE and upholding the Leahy Law point the way for the Democratic Party to move in directions consistent with what voters want."
"Getting sufficient turnout from the party’s base at election time," he added, "will require a change in the approach of the party’s national leadership so that it is clearly responsive to the views of Democrats nationwide.”
"I would hope that we can all agree that Republican special interests should not play a role in determining the outcome of Democratic primaries. The time to act is now."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday urged national Democratic leaders to impose a total ban on super PAC spending in primary contests, a change that the progressive senator said is necessary to prevent corporate interests from heavily influencing the party's electoral outcomes.
In a letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote that "what is particularly obscene is not only the outrageous amount of money coming into Democratic primaries from billionaire-funded super PACs, but the reality that these special interests have no particular desire to see Democrats win."
Sanders, who caucuses with the Democratic Party, cited as a telling example the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's $30 million intervention in the Democratic primary for a critical US Senate seat in Michigan. The organization, known as AIPAC, spent heavily to boost Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and attempt to tear down her progressive opponent, Abdul El-Sayed—who went on to win the race despite being massively outspent.
AIPAC is now reportedly planning to spend big in support of El-Sayed's Republican general election opponent, Mike Rogers.
"It is absurd that they spend tens of millions of dollars to try to determine who the Democratic nominee is and, if they fail, then proceed to support the Republican candidate in the general election," Sandres wrote. "That is not democracy. That is not what Democratic voters want."
Sanders emphasized his support for passage of a constitutional amendment to repeal the US Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for the establishment and proliferation of super PACs—entities that can raise and spend unlimited sums supporting or opposing political campaigns.
"BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT," Sanders wrote in all caps. "Right now, the Democratic Party has the power to prohibit super PACs from participating in its primaries. That can be done. That must be done. I urge you to take action and make clear that the Democratic Party will no longer maintain this corrupt system."
"While there are ideological differences of opinion within the big tent of the party, I would hope that we can all agree that Republican special interests should not play a role in determining the outcome of Democratic primaries," the senator continued. "The time to act is now."
The DNC has repeatedly faced calls in recent years to curb or eliminate the influence of super PACs in Democratic primaries—but has yet to take concrete action.
Earlier this year, the DNC Rules Committee rejected a proposed resolution that condemned the "growing influence" of AIPAC and other organizations pumping huge sums into Democratic primaries. The rules panel instead advanced a resolution broadly condemning dark money and expressing the DNC's "commitment to campaign finance practices that align with the party’s core values."
Nearly a third of all corporate political spending on elections since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling has come during the 2026 election cycle, according to a June report by Public Citizen.
"Cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online betting corporations have collectively spent $294 million to influence federal elections in the 2026 midterm cycle, reflecting a strategic move to spend directly on political action committees to influence federal elections," the report found. "These corporate super PAC political contributions make up 57% of the $517 million that corporations have reported spending on the 2026 midterms so far."
"This is all strange in ways that either suggest dishonesty or stupidity," said one critic.
When the Democratic National Committee at long last released its "autopsy" report on former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 election in May, one of the most puzzling aspects was the lack of any conclusions related to her and former President Joe Biden's support for Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Holly Otterbein of Axios reported on Thursday that the document's author, Paul Rivera, did indeed look into the issue of Gaza and found it had a role in Harris’ loss. But he did not submit the findings to the DNC for inclusion in the report. Axios did not include an explanation for that decision.
Rivera confirmed Axios’ reporting from back in February that the conclusions had been shared with the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, a pro-Palestinian think tank, which told the DNC that Harris’ failure to break from Biden’s policy on Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza proved a liability with progressive voters, especially in Michigan.
This news led to speculation that DNC chair Ken Martin, who had resisted calls to release the autopsy in full, was doing so to avoid publicizing findings that portrayed Israel as an albatross around the party's neck.
Rivera alleged earlier this week that Martin and top DNC brass withheld other portions of his report from public view, including a chapter criticizing the party's overreliance on “self-enriching” consultants and party operatives out of touch with voters. Rivera claims to have handed Martin a three-ring binder containing the report, but Martin denies that this occurred.
Rivera, who was fired from his advisory role at the DNC following widespread public backlash to the release of the autopsy, has since published his own 564-page report on the 2024 election, which includes several pages examining the role of Gaza.
As of Election Day 2024, more than 43,000 Palestinians had been killed, including at least 13,300 identified children, according to figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health, and protests had swept the nation demanding that Biden cut off military aid to Israel.
While Rivera's report does not conclude that Gaza alone cost Harris the election, it found that it had a clear role in alienating voters who would have otherwise supported Harris.
It found that in Michigan, one of the key swing states that handed victory to Trump, the losses in heavily Arab and Middle Eastern communities like West Bloomfield, Sterling Heights, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, and Hamtramck, were significant.
In these communities, Harris received 30,850 fewer votes in 2024 than Biden did in 2020, while Trump gained 14,874, a swing accounting for nearly 20% of the 234,291-vote shift that handed President Donald Trump the state.
Rivera noted that the Uncommitted Movement, which garnered more than 700,000 votes nationally in the 2024 primary, originated in Dearborn, where Harris lost nearly a third of the support Biden had received in 2020. In nearby Hamtramck, her support tanked by 39% from Biden's in 2020.
Notably, many of these voters did not flock to Trump, but to Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who received more than 12,000 votes across Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, and Hamtramck.
"The political analysis is simple," Rivera wrote. "The electoral results and voting shifts in Michigan and elsewhere demonstrate the impact the crisis had on the Harris campaign."
He concluded that the issue could not simply be boiled down to "messaging" but to concrete policy.
“For many voters whose family members were displaced, subject to violence, or killed, the inability of the administration to effectively intervene was unacceptable,” he wrote. “In 2024, absent a real end to military action and restoration of civilian control in Gaza, many voters in Michigan and elsewhere would not be satisfied.”
Asked by Common Dreams to elaborate on why he did not provide these findings to the DNC, Rivera did not immediately respond to a request sent through his website’s press contact.
Zeeshan Aleem, a political columnist at MSNOW was puzzled by the decision by Rivera not to provide the Gaza findings to the DNC.
"This is all strange in ways that either suggest dishonesty or stupidity," he said. "The author of the DNC report said he did conclude that Gaza hurt Kamala, but didn’t include that finding in the report he submitted to the DNC. Why?"
The opacity and conflicting narratives surrounding the autopsy's release continue to befuddle critics and onlookers.
Dave Weigel, a political reporter at Semafor, described the idea that Gaza cost Harris votes as "a water-is-wet finding guarded like the Ark of the Covenant."
"Martin could have just admitted that, yes, this issue that got Harris protested everywhere and helped Trump win Michigan hurt the campaign," he said. "Instead, it became a secret that Holly pried loose and generated an extra year of negative stories."
The exclusion of Gaza from the official report released in May became ammunition for some commentators seeking to downplay the idea that Democrats' support for Israel is an electoral liability or to accuse the IMEU Policy Project of spinning a false narrative.
Responding to the release of Rivera's report, media critic Adam Johnson mocked those who framed it as a "conspiracy theory."
"What’s so important to understand is that anyone denying Gaza harmed Harris’ chances is a rank propagandist. Nobody believes this in good faith," he said. "Obviously it did. We can debate the degree of harm it had, but clearly it was significant and had many downstream deflating effects."
As progressives notch win after win in Democratic primaries, the 26-year-old activist said it shows that the party "didn’t lose Gen Z; they just needed candidates to vote for."
Just over a year ago, David Hogg, then the newly-minted vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, found himself unceremoniously pushed out after he called on the party to back primary challengers to unseat members of a moribund establishment.
Now, as progressives notch victory after victory against the party's conservative old guard and are once again galvanizing young voters thought to have been lost, the 26-year-old reformer says it proves he was right all along.
"A year ago, I was removed from my position as vice chair of the DNC for daring to suggest that we needed to challenge geriatric, corrupt, and asleep-at-the-wheel Democrats in safe blue seats," Hogg wrote in an op-ed for Zeteo on Thursday. "The establishment kicked me out for those 'radical' views, and the establishment is losing."
His missive came days after yet another triumph for the left in Michigan, where the progressive Dr. Abdul El-Sayed overcame more than $60 million in outside spending in the Senate primary, more than half of which came from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to upset a candidate backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other leading figures in the party establishment.
Hogg—a survivor of the 2018 Parkland school shooting who co-founded the gun control advocacy group March for Our Lives— noted El-Sayed's victory as one of the latest in a "hot streak" for the organization he formed in 2023 and has continued to lead after being forced out of the DNC.
The group, known as Leaders We Deserve, is predominantly funded by small-dollar donors and has boosted young progressives to challenge the party status quo, running on policies like Medicare for All, increased taxes on the rich, expanding public services, and an end to aggressive foreign interventions and military funding for Israel.
The group was a major outside supporter of a super PAC that helped fuel democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani's unexpected ascent in New York City last year.
It has also backed a number of progressive challengers who've gone on to defeat well-funded, establishment-backed candidates this cycle, including community activist Donavan McKinney in Michigan, labor organizer Claire Valdez in New York, and professor Randy Villegas in California, who've each claimed Democratic nominations for the US House.
Hogg wrote that state-level candidates backed by his organization have an 18-1 record in their races this cycle.
He argued that the success of these candidates served as a counterpoint to the conventional wisdom following the party's losses in 2024, that Democrats needed to chase young voters to the right after they opted in unexpectedly huge numbers for President Donald Trump.
"As we saw in Mamdani’s race, and in races with progressive candidates across the country," Hogg said, "young voters are turning out in record numbers, proving that we didn’t lose Gen Z; they just needed candidates to vote for."
And contrary to the establishment's fearmongering about "electability," Hogg said the left's recent wins show that "progressives aren’t just electable; they’re a dominant force."
"Voters see clearly that many of our politicians are serving their largest corporate donors instead of the working class. Younger voters cannot fathom voting for a status quo that has never served them," he said. "It turns out that a focused affordability message, moral clarity, and a commitment to not being bought motivates voters across the political spectrum."
"A year ago, cable news pundit panels, elected officials, campaign strategists, and the entire establishment told me I was crazy for daring to challenge our party to do better," Hogg said. "Today, I say: I wasn’t wrong; I was just early."
"There are too many people who have become generationally wealthy off politics and drive too much of the decision-making within the ecosystem."
The New York Times on Monday published what it described as a "missing chapter" of the Democratic National Committee's widely criticized "autopsy" of the 2024 presidential election.
The chapter, titled "What Happened in 2024" and provided to the Times by Democratic strategist Paul Rivera, offers criticisms of party consultants who are "self-enriching" and out of touch with the concerns of ordinary voters.
Specifically, the chapter questions whether Democratic politicians and operatives have a grasp on the economic realities facing most Americans, while calling for "a fundamental re-evaluation" of whether Democrats "really understand the wants and needs of voters."
"An emerging critique of Democratic decision-making," the chapter states, "is there are too many people who have become generationally wealthy off politics and drive too much of the decision-making within the ecosystem. This is deeply frustrating to many... who want to try a different set of politics but keep banging their heads up against a system proven to be inflexible and self-enriching."
The chapter adds that "many of the people who worked at the highest levels of the party" are "financially secure," and thus potentially insulated "from the realities many Americans were encountering in their lives."
In an interview with the Times, Rivera claimed that he personally handed the missing chapter to DNC Chair Ken Martin in a three-ring binder earlier this year.
Rivera said he had no specific insight into why the chapter was not included with the report that the DNC released in May.
"Whether that was a conscious decision on their part to bury the section for the purposes of hiding a paragraph, I don’t know," the Democratic strategist told the Times. "That's a them question. What I can tell you is they had it, and they made a decision not to release it."
Martin, however, flatly denied that Rivera had ever personally handed him the chapter.
“This alleged report section was not in any binder I reviewed," said Martin in a written statement given to the Times. "If we had this in May, we would have released it with the rest of the report."
Martin also called it ridiculous to suggest that he would have suppressed a section of the final DNC report to avoid offending the party's consultant class.
"If I or the DNC had report materials that went after self-enriching consultants, we absolutely would have included them," Martin insisted, noting his own past promises "to hold the consultant-industrial complex accountable and ensure the party only pays for work that actually helps us win."
The Times report noted that the DNC's autopsy featured a section titled "What Happened" that was listed as "pending" on the grounds that it "was not provided by author."