SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
hakeem jeffries
Corporate Media Jump to Defense of Schumer and Jeffries
Your latest reminder that while right-wing and centrist media can seem far apart, they can still come together when it is time to fend off progressives.
Nov 15, 2026
While Democratic leadership takes credit for the party’s takeover of both houses of Congress and several state governments, progressives and socialists are calling for change at the top.
“Democratic House members and members-elect are being bombarded with phone calls and emails urging them not to elect Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) as speaker,” Axios reported (11/6/26). A petition to replace Jeffries has hit 500,000 signatures (Newsweek, 11/5/26).
Meanwhile, several of the new Democratic senators-elect have said they do not support longtime top Dem Charles Schumer of New York for majority leader (Guardian, 11/6/26).
Reasons for pushback
There are a variety of reasons for the pushback. Schumer’s silence in the face of the administration’s politicized attack on Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) angered many (Talking Points Memo, 10/26/26). Said Time (11/6/26):
The ubiquitous New Yorker was, detractors said, too prone to seek compromise, too wary of committing to fights with President Donald Trump and his administration.
And International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers President Brian Bryant sent a letter to Schumer insisting that he not seek the majority leadership position (Politico, 11/9/26). Bryant noted that the “elections sent a clear message: working people are demanding change.
Jeffries, for his part, opposes Medicare for All (Newsweek, 8/17/26), despite the fact that the policy proposal currently receives 66% approval from the public—and from 84% of Democrats (The Hill, 10/6/26). As the Lever (8/17/26) explained:
Jeffries has raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign cash from healthcare PACs in the 2026 election cycle and didn’t face any primary challenge holding him accountable to Democratic voters’ desires.
Jeffries is also known for his ties to AIPAC. “At a conference hosted by the group in 2020, Jeffries opposed putting conditions on US aid to Israel and described Jerusalem as New York City’s ‘sixth borough,’” reported Al Jazeera (11/7/26).
And the Democrats will need strong leaders against the White House; Trump is still in power, despite the Republicans’ recent drubbing, and he elevated Stephen Miller, the architect of his administration’s brutal and deadly anti-immigrant round-ups and martial occupations of US cities, to White House chief of staff. The move signals “a combative posture for the final two years of the Trump era,” the Wall Street Journal (11/6/26) noted.
“Democrats were in shambles and historically unpopular after the presidential election. That was because of Democrats like Schumer and Jeffries,” said USA Today columnist Sara Pequeño (11/9/26). “I did not hear a peep from them throughout this election cycle, and they failed throughout Trump’s first two years.” Pequeño is a lonely voice in corporate media, which largely reject such insurgent talk.
‘Candidates who can defeat Republicans’
Errol Louis, host of NY1‘s Inside City Hall, wrote a column for New York magazine (11/6/26) under the headline “How Hakeem Jeffries Engineered the Democratic Rout.” Louis wrote:
For all the headlines given to the supposed influence of socialists and ultraprogressives, Jeffries’ majority was created by painstakingly recruiting and supporting the kind of candidates who can defeat Republicans. In New York, while the Democratic Socialists of America were attacking mainstream Democrats like Adriano Espaillat and Antonio Reynoso, and debating over who was first to use the word “genocide” to denounce attacks on Gaza, Jeffries was lining up candidates in red-to-blue districts that included ministers, combat veterans, farmers, prosecutors and other centrists from blue-collar backgrounds.
Louis clearly suggests that only “centrists” are the “kind of candidates who can defeat Republicans,” and that “ultraprogressives” waste valuable resources attacking those centrists. But clearly progressives can and did defeat Republicans, including Maine’s Troy Jackson, an insurgent candidate at odds with the national party who took down Sen. Susan Collins, who survived decades of challenges from more conventional Democrats.
DSA’s primary campaigns against Jeffries allies Espaillat and Reynoso were successful because the challengers had voters’ support. Primaries are just as much a function of electoral democracy as the November elections, whether Louis likes it or not.
And in many of the successful Democratic House races, it wasn’t “centrism” that was being heavily promoted; it was popular progressive policies like Medicare for All or other forms of healthcare expansion, taxing the rich, paid family leave and ending US support for genocide (FAIR.org, 11/6/26).
But also, let’s not oversell Jeffries’ involvement in these races—the minority leader doesn’t abracadabra their campaigns into victory mode. Louis noted that Jeffries “personally campaigned” for Cait Conley in upstate New York against Republican incumbent Mike Lawler. Great, but scores of union members from around the state went door-to-door to turn out union households against Lawler as well. Louis presents elections as moved by individual leaders rather than masses of people. That’s not how democracy works.
‘Tricky for Mr. Schumer’
Over at the Atlantic (11/5/26), Franklin Foer defended Schumer, again invoking the idea that the leader of the old guard was responsible for beating the Republicans this year. The piece highlights Schumer’s support for Scott Colom in Mississippi, where the Democrat is looking likely to squeak out a victory over Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (Washington Post, 11/9/26): “Flipping Mississippi, he boasted, was an old fixation, his ‘white whale.’ It’s the state with the largest share of Black residents in the country.”
Tellingly, El Kilgore (New York, 11/10/26) downplayed national Democrats’ role in Mississippi, saying that “compared to what the party was committing to other Senate races,” Colom received “sofa-cushion money.” He added, “Colom understandably doesn’t want to blame Chuck Schumer and his likely future colleagues in the Senate Democratic Conference,” but noted that “he’s clearly annoyed with the Beltway conventional wisdom and the institutions that help define it.”
Even if we give Schumer credit for the successful candidates he helped, to whatever extent, we still need to blame him for the losing candidates he didn’t help. Progressives complain that Schumer ignored democratic socialist Angie Nixon’s campaign for a Senate seat in Florida, which she narrowly lost (Atlanta Black Star, 11/9/26).
Meanwhile, the Washington Post (11/8/26) reported that “Democrats’ Senate campaign arm ultimately did not spend on [Nixon’s] race, though Schumer helped her fundraise last month.” According to the Post, the Republican incumbent “had more than 60 times the amount of outside money supporting her.” Had the national party been more involved in Florida, Nixon might be a senator-elect today.
Salon (11/5/26) described Schumer’s lack of support for Nixon:
Since her shock primary win in August, Nixon has complained about Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recalcitrance to anyone who will listen. In September, she told MS NOW hosts Symone Sanders Townsend and Eugene Daniels that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was less than thrilled about her race.
“When I did speak with Sen. Schumer on the phone, it was basically a ‘we will see,’” she said. “He’s going to look into it. That’s what was said, that he’s going to look into it.”
Any statewide Democratic victory in Florida would have been enormous, because under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, the state has been a laboratory for anti-trans legislation and the destruction of public higher education (Guardian, 6/24/21; Human Rights Campaign, 5/17/23; AP, 3/30/23; Advocate, 5/15/23; PEN America, 8/10/23; People, 3/27/26). Leaving the state to the Republicans signals that Democratic leadership is more comfortable with Florida staying in MAGA-land than adding to the national presence of democratic socialist elected officials.
A New York Times piece (11/7/26) treated Schumer’s ascension to the top Senate spot as a foregone conclusion, without ever mentioning the issue with Nixon. It also contains this nugget:
Michigan was tricky for Mr. Schumer as he leaned toward the centrist Rep. Haley Stevens, while her ultraprogressive primary opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, was among a group of candidates who said they would not back Mr. Schumer for leader. Still, the day after Mr. El-Sayed won the primary, Mr. Schumer began injecting funds to help him win.
Electing Democrats is literally Schumer’s job. How is it “tricky” that Schumer ultimately supported the charismatic progressive who faced an onslaught of racist attacks?
‘Noxious newbies’
It isn’t just centrist media going to bat for the current Democratic congressional leadership. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post editorial board (11/5/26) called incoming progressive senators and congressmembers who are demanding new congressional leadership “pipsqueaks”:
Voters handed Dems control on Tuesday out of frustration with living costs, economic uncertainty and corruption: Schumer and Jeffries need to focus on delivering on those fronts, not the agenda of a handful of urban elitists.
Indeed, they’d be wise to make the noxious newbies pay some price for their petulance—the very worst offices and committee assignments, for starters.
The right way to handle such tantrums is, if not a spanking, then a solid time-out.
Referring to party dissidents as cranky children who should receive corporal punishment is a disdain for democracy itself, not whatever ideology they are advancing.
But perhaps more telling is how eager the Post is to defend the centrist leadership of the Democratic Party. This is the same editorial board that accused Jeffries of advancing “pure hokum” (4/13/23) and scolded Schumer for showing insufficient deference to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (3/14/24).
It’s a reminder that while right-wing and centrist media can seem far apart, they can still come together when it is time to fend off progressives and protect people in power.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Cheered, Jeffries Jeered at Denver Event Asking ‘What’s Next’ for Democratic Party
"We have an opportunity to restore faith in our democracy—not by preaching about its virtues, but delivering," said US Sen. Chris Van Hollen.
Nov 13, 2026
Sen. Chris Van Hollen got an enthusiastic reception on Friday at the “What’s Next” summit hosted by the group Majority Democrats in Denver, when the Maryland Democrat brought up his bid to challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer as leader of the caucus.
Van Hollen, who just hours earlier announced his intention to run for Senate majority leader in the next US Congress, was greeted with big applause as he took to the stage at the convention, with some in the audience shouting, "Leader!"
Chris Van Hollen gets thunderous applause and "leader" shouts at What's Next. https://t.co/T7g4DE48tm
— CENTRIFUGE (@ClippingMods) November 13, 2026
During his address, Van Hollen said that his goal as leader would be to restore American voters' faith in democracy, as polls for years have shown steep declines in trust across US institutions.
"For many Americans, our institutions sound like the thing that is standing in the way of getting that better life," Van Hollen said, according to Semafor reporter Dave Weigel. "We have an opportunity to restore faith in our democracy—not by preaching about its virtues, but delivering."
The Maryland Democrat then echoed remarks made over the last week by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), as well as Sens.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) and James Talarico (D-Texas), about passing popular legislation and daring President Donald Trump to block it.
"What if we actually had votes on the Senate floor about things the American people really cared about?" Van Hollen asked. "If Trump wants to veto it and... show that he stands with his billionaire buddies, let him do that."
While Van Hollen was well received at the conference, Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who aims to become the House speaker, was repeatedly heckled and booed during his discussion with Democratic strategist Jessica Tarlov.
One demonstrator, who was escorted out of the auditorium, yelled that Jeffries was a "traitor" for "shaking hands with the Trump family," presumably a reference to the New York Democrat's meeting with Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, earlier this year.
yikes -- Jeffries's talk in Denver is being disrupted by a string of protesters, one of whom screams obscenities at him https://t.co/zyiYkgdSIj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 13, 2026
Progressive organizers over the last week have been calling for Jeffries to step aside as leader, although no other House Democrat has officially announced their candidacy for the speakership.
A Change.org petition posted earlier this week to draft Rep. Ayana Pressley (D-Mass.) for the speakership has gained nearly 99,000 signatures as of this writing.
The New York Times reported on Friday that Jeffries is "pressing to wrap up his nomination to be speaker next week quickly and overwhelmingly, leaving potential detractors little room to maneuver around him even as some of them complain about an undemocratic process."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dodging Question on US-Israel Military Integration, Jeffries ‘Makes It Crystal Clear’ Why He Shouldn’t Be Speaker
The Senate minority leader addressed reporters amid a push for progressives in the House to nominate Rep. Ayanna Pressley as an alternative to Jeffries at next week’s Democratic caucus meeting.
Nov 13, 2026
Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries sidestepped a reporter’s questions about a controversial proposal to more closely integrate the US and Israeli militaries on Thursday, underscoring some critics’ argument that he’s unfit to serve as House speaker when Democrats retake the chamber in January.
Democrats in the US Congress are facing growing calls to strip out provisions in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would significantly expand cooperation between the US and Israeli defense industries, making it easier for the two countries to jointly develop weapons, share military technology, and incorporate Israeli tech into US military systems.
One poll from August by Data for Progress showed that 61% of likely voters opposed the measure, known as the "United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative," including 78% of Democrats—a reflection of the public's growing desire for the US to cut ties with Israel following over three years of genocidal attacks on Gaza, expansionist conquest in the West Bank and Lebanon, and military aggression against Iran.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who is challenging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to lead the Democrats’ Senate majority, said earlier this week that Democrats should oppose the military integration provisions. He and his colleagues warned that these provisions would give Israel even greater leverage over US policy and threaten national security by granting Israel access to sensitive information about US military technology beyond what is shared even with NATO allies.
The NDAA is expected to come up for a vote next month. But it will need Democratic support to pass the Senate, where 60 votes are required to break the filibuster. It may also face obstacles in the House, where Republicans hold a narrow 218-214 majority. Some in the GOP, like Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), and Anna Paulina Luna (Fla.), have already signaled opposition to the measure, meaning that a united Democratic caucus could kill it.
Asked by The Hill's Laura Kelly at a news conference on Thursday whether he agreed with Van Hollen's call to remove the provisions from the NDAA, Jeffries never answered her question directly:
I haven't had a conversation with Sen. Van Hollen, but what I have said is that things have to dramatically change over in the Middle East.
We need dramatic change in the West Bank, which is why I strongly support the West Bank Violence Protection Act. We need dramatic change in Gaza, and we need dramatic change with respect to the memorandum of understanding as it winds down, all of which I've previously said publicly.
And we'll work as a caucus to make sure that we can bring about the just and lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians deserve over in the Middle East.
The status quo is unacceptable, and we need dramatic change. And that looks like, as far as I'm concerned, making sure you have a safe and secure Israel, living side by side as a Jewish and democratic state with an independent Palestinian state that provides dignity and self-determination for the Palestinian people.
Jeffries, who has received more than $1 million in campaign donations facilitated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) since 2022, is already facing criticism over his refusal earlier this week to commit to using next month's government funding bill to force President Donald Trump to end his war in Iran and for failing to ensure the whole Democratic caucus was present for a key vote to advance the impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that with his noncommittal answer on US-Israeli military integration, Jeffries had “in less than 90 seconds” made it “crystal clear why he should not become the next speaker of the House.”
"Asked whether he supports removing provisions that deepen US defense cooperation and intelligence sharing with Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act—an obvious yes!—he refuses to address the question and instead gives a 1990s answer about a mythological two-state solution," Parsi wrote on social media.
In the Senate, momentum is building behind Van Hollen’s effort to oust Schumer as leader. On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said that Schumer, another staunch ally of Israel, was “way out of touch with where the American people are at.”
Several incoming Democratic senators, including Abdul El-Sayed (Mich.), Peggy Flanagan (Minn.), Troy Jackson (Maine), Adam Hamilton (Kan.), and Juliana Stratton (Ill.), have said they support Van Hollen or won't back Schumer, while others, including Democratic Sens.-elect Annie Andrews (SC) and Chris Pappas (NH), as well as the centrist Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), have suggested they wanted new leadership.
However, despite growing calls from the Democratic base for new leadership in the House as well, no Democrat has formally stepped up yet to challenge Jeffries’ claim to the speaker’s gavel.
Some newly elected Democrats—like Reps.-elect Melat Kiros (Colo.), Don Leonard (Ohio), and Claire Valdez (NY)—have suggested they would prefer a different leader, but House progressive leaders have so far put the kibosh on an insurgency, with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), and Greg Casar (Texas) standing by Jeffries, at least as long as he's the only choice.
Time is running out for progressives to rally behind an alternative to Jeffries. The Democratic caucus will begin its internal leadership elections on November 18 and choose its nominee for speaker. The entire House will vote to elect a speaker when the new Congress convenes on January 3, 2027.
Some grassroots organizers have pushed for progressive Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) to challenge Jeffries, with one petition to draft her garnering over 90,000 signatures.
She has circulated her own petition pushing for a bolder agenda for Democrats to pursue in the next Congress, including passage of Medicare for All, national abortion protections, restrictions on data centers, and the abolition of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In a speech on the House floor Thursday, she declared that “incrementalism is a recipe for failure” and that Democrats “cannot let money and the special interests dictate our fight.”
No one in the House Democratic caucus has publicly declared support for Pressley. But there is reportedly some movement behind the scenes ahead of Wednesday’s caucus meeting, where a nominee for party leader will be chosen.
One lawmaker, granted anonymity by Drop Site News congressional reporter Julian Andreone, said, "I am hearing that many progressives will be writing Ayanna’s name in.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Not Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries?
When so many Americans don’t want to see these two in leadership positions in the House and the Senate, it’s a dereliction of duty in a democracy to ignore that.
Nov 13, 2026
“Why not?” is an important question, so I’m going to answer it as clearly as I can.
For many decades, the Democratic Party has been guided by leadership like that of Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. In Schumer’s case, I mean him specifically. In Jeffries’ case, it’s more the ideology. And that leadership has led to the Democratic Party being disrespected, mistrusted, and unliked nationwide. Of course, we still have pockets where the party is strong, but in general, we’re running at about a 39% approval rating across the country. And those two are even less popular than President Donald Trump.
But the biggest reason the Democratic Party needs new leadership is that it needs to rebuild trust with the American people. It needs to rebuild trust with its own voters, in government, in our institutions, and in our systems of justice and accountability. The party needs to make sure life is affordable enough for people to not only survive, but thrive. It also needs to work towards restoring faith in our democracy by strengthening it.
That means taking on a lot of efforts where the people’s interests are at odds with many of the members in the House and the Senate. Those policy fights will go against not just their donors, but their friendships and their relationships. They’re still in a mindset of bipartisanship as opposed to supermajoritarian rule. You can’t have both.
If you want a country that’s able to change things, like ending Citizens United and ending gerrymandering at the federal level, you need a powerful Democratic Party. And if you look back through history, America has made most of its major changes and improvements under supermajoritarian, single-party rule at the federal level, with big majorities in state legislatures and governors’ mansions around the country too.
The simple fact of the matter is that divided governments are great for maintaining the status quo, but they’re not built for change at all. And this moment we’re in, and the foreseeable future, are going to require change. Systemic, dramatic, radical change. Adapting to things like AI and robotics. Adapting to climate change. Working to repair broken institutions like our judicial branch, our prison systems, and our healthcare systems. Fixing our relationship with tech companies, with markets, and with private firms, including what we require from them in exchange for allowing them to exist.
Neither Chuck Schumer nor Hakeem Jeffries is well-suited for this. I’m not sure any of the people who’ve raised their hands are the exact choices we need. But at this point, the most valuable thing that comes out of the fight to replace them is just the fight itself. Flexing the muscles of the electorate.
When so many Americans don’t want to see Hakeem and Chuck in leadership positions in the House and the Senate, it’s a dereliction of duty in a democracy to ignore that. But that, in and of itself, has no consequences unless we provide them.
That, I think, is why it’s so important that we’re doing what we’re doing. All across this country, organizations, individuals, and a handful of elected officials are taking a stand and saying, “No. We need to move in a different direction. This isn’t the way.” And that unity of purpose, that unity of mission, is one of the most valuable things to come out of this fight.
So what are we doing here at A Fight Worth Having?
We’re sending LED trucks all across DS so the new members, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and others are reminded that the American people are behind them if they choose to be brave. We’re running ads on television in DC. We’re running full-page newspaper ads. We’re trying to make sure the people in DC see and know that the American people are united in their resistance to this leadership, and that they’ll be doing the people’s business if they take a stand.
We’re also running a series of about 110 polls across the country to see exactly where Americans stand, and we’re releasing that polling, hopefully on Monday or Tuesday, before the votes for Speaker. We’re doing everything we can to make sure these folks are ready.
The other thing we’re doing is raising money for the handful of folks who’ve said, “No more” and committed to opposing Jeffries. So far, we’ve raised $86,000.
If you want to help these members, you can do so here.
This is the first of many fights that are worth having. Let's go.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The 'Blue Wave' Will Mean Nothing Without New Leadership
Voters didn't deliver a majority just to watch Democrats perform helplessness. It’s time to reject corporate-backed leadership before this wave hits a wall.
Nov 12, 2026
As an elder millennial, I remember the “Blue Wave” of 2006-2008 well. I remember feeling like young people had really accomplished something, and that there was something to hope for. I also remember the gnawing defeat that followed when Democrats all but squandered the opportunity.
The American people expect this “Blue Wave” to destroy the status quo politics that are robbing them of dignified lives. But if House Democrats continue to perform helplessness and elect Hakeem Jeffries, that wave will encounter a massive seawall and lose its force.
Hakeem Jeffries' donor network represents everything a progressive majority should stand against. Reporting from Sludge reveals that his top backers include major Wall Street investors, cryptocurrency interests, defense giants, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—corporate players with a direct financial stake in how aggressively Congress regulates the private sector.
If Democrats hand Jeffries the gavel without a fight, they will squander this opportunity and, yet again, betray the American people.
Among these ties, his relationship with the defense sector is particularly alarming. This cycle alone, Palantir’s head of government affairs contributed over $44,000, while Anduril’s CEO and COO poured nearly $150,000 into Jeffries’s fundraising committees. This comes alongside over $1 million in earmarked campaign funds channeled through AIPAC, despite Jeffries publicly downplaying direct PAC contributions.
The danger here is that these financial ties have immediate foreign policy consequences. In September, Iran reported capturing an Anduril underwater drone in the Strait of Hormuz. Despite the Navy trying to do damage control, the reality remains: an Anduril weapon was deployed in a conflict Jeffries himself had previously condemned as "unlawful." All the while, the very executives profiting from that technology were fueling his rise to the speakership.
This financial dependency directly shapes his policy stance and a pattern of stalling and evasion. In March, less than a week after branding the war in Iran illegal, Jeffries deflected when asked if he would block additional war funding, claiming Democrats would "cross that bridge when we get to it." By June, he reversed course, arguing Democrats shouldn’t spend another dime.
Voters deserve to know whether the defense executives funding his campaigns influenced that three-month delay. A leader who hesitates to halt an illegal war while taking campaign cash from weapons manufacturers is indefensibly corrupt, and ought to be disqualified from the speakership.
That same failure to hold the line reemerged on Tuesday during a critical vote on executive oversight. The House voted 211-204 to refer Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-Ky.) articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to committee, effectively killing the resolution. Eleven Democrats—all of whom are funded by AIPAC—were conveniently absent. While several blamed traffic delays and police escorts, reporting from Common Dreams revealed they missed the floor vote to attend a fundraiser for Elect Democratic Women, an AIPAC front group.
A future speaker who is so bought out by military contractors and corporate interests that he can’t whip his members for a vote of this magnitude is not ready to lead investigations into one of the most corrupt administrations in modern history. The American people deserve more than yet another farce.
Voters are much smarter than they’re given credit for. A PBS poll found that voters believe that the economy, our state of democracy, and government corruption are the top issues facing our country. They know exactly what’s happening and what’s at stake.
Yet, they’re supposed to believe that a compromised Jeffries speakership will set an agenda that roots out corruption? I can assure you: They don’t. That sharp skepticism is why over 1 million people have signed a Change.org petition demanding House Democrats deny Jeffries the speakership and elect someone who truly represents the people.
If Democrats hand Jeffries the gavel without a fight, they will squander this opportunity and, yet again, betray the American people. I sure as hell wouldn’t want that to be my legacy. And House Democrats should feel the same way.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Petition Aimed at Drafting Ayanna Pressley to Challenge Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker Picks Up Steam
"We believe that as speaker of the House, Ayanna Pressley would bring her innovative spirit and unwavering resolve to tackle the pressing challenges facing our nation."
Nov 11, 2026
With calls from progressives growing for congressional Democrats to choose new leaders, a movement is building to have US Rep. Ayanna Pressley challenge Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries for the speakership next year.
A Change.org petition launched this week is urging Democratic lawmakers to make Pressley speaker, arguing that the Massachusetts Democrat "represents a beacon of hope and integrity in a tumultuous political landscape."
"We believe that as speaker of the House, Ayanna Pressley would bring her innovative spirit and unwavering resolve to tackle the pressing challenges facing our nation," the petition states. "Her ability to foster meaningful conversations and build bridges across the political aisle makes her uniquely qualified for this pivotal role."
The petition also praises Pressley's leadership style, which it says is "marked by transparency and inclusivity"—traits that align "with what the majority of Americans want to see in their government."
As of this writing, the petition has gathered more than 18,000 signatures.
While Pressley has not shown any intention of launching a challenge to Jeffries' (D-NY) speakership bid, she said in a Tuesday social media post that Democrats need to act boldly to meet voters' expectations.
"Republicans have been flooding the zone with lawlessness, cruelty, and corruption," Pressley wrote. "And Democrats have a mandate to match their energy—boldly and unapologetically. It's not enough to be the adults in the room. We have to prove that we are the FIGHTERS in the room."
According to a tally published Wednesday by Drop Site, 49 House Democrats so far have pledged to support Jeffries for speaker, with 23 Democrats uncommitted and zero Democrats outright opposed. Jeffries needs to secure 218 votes in the next Congress to ascend to the speakership.
Following last week’s midterm elections, progressives have called for Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who aims to continue leading the Democrats in the Senate, to step aside and make way for leaders who better reflect the Democratic base.
Polls have shown a majority of Democratic voters support Medicare for All and an end to US military aid for Israel, for example, which both Jeffries and Schumer oppose.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Impeachment Debacle Latest Example of Jeffries' Awful Leadership
Coach Hakeem Jeffries did not have enough players on the field and Team Trump scored a touchdown. It is as simple as that.
Nov 11, 2026
The US House of Representatives on Tuesday night, with a 211 to 204 margin, voted to refer the impeachment charges against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to a committee, allowing Republicans to slow the process so that the current Congress would not be able to take them up. There are procedural options that would allow impeachment to be brought up again, but these are very unlikely.
The political reality is that Hegseth will continue as Defense Secretary for the near future. Indeed, the House’s failure to impeach Hegseth only builds his political capital with President Donald Trump.
As expected, House Republicans closed ranks behind Hegseth. What was not expected was that 11 House Democrats failed to show up to vote. If you do the simple arithmetic, it is clear that had the Democrats showed up the House would have been able to consider the impeachment charges against Hegseth. As the New York Times reported on November 10:
The action spared Republicans a vote on whether to impeach Mr. Hegseth on eight separate charges, including violating the Constitution to wage war in Iran and elsewhere without congressional authorization, flouting laws to mitigate civilian casualties and abusing his power by retaliating against a senator for public statements.
If the impeachment process continued, it would not have ended Trump’s ability to wage war against without congressional approval. However, combined with last week's weeks Democratic midterm elections it would have sent a powerful signal to both Trump and to the world at large.
A large part of life is showing up to do our jobs. As Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) pointed out soon after the impeachment, when she was working in a restaurant, she had to clock in every day. While I certainly hold the 11 missing Democrats responsible for their actions, the bigger question is about Congressman Hakeem Jeffries’ leadership role while in the minority, and next year when he hopes to become Speaker of the House.
You do not have to be a historian or political scientist to understand that as the Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries’ prime responsibility is to make sure that his Democratic members show up to vote. It is like a football coach making sure that he has 11 players on the field. Well, Coach Jeffries did not have enough players on the field and Team Trump scored a touchdown. It is as simple as that.
Understandably, House Democrats are feeling euphoric about last week’s Blue Tsunami. However, they do need to be clear-eyed about the task ahead of them. The Democrats in Congress will need all their political skills, to push back against Trump’s war with Iran and prevent other foreign and domestic disasters. Reversing the Medicaid cuts from the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” will be a major issue on the domestic front along with addressing the affordability crisis. In under two years, the Trump administration has done untold damage to America’s domestic and international needs.
The conventional wisdom is that Jeffries will not be seriously challenged for leader when the Democratic caucus votes for a nominee for House Speaker at a party meeting on November 18. Up until the Hegseth impeachment debacle, I would agree that there would not be a serious challenge. Things have changed. Fundamental questions must be asked and answered before the House Democrats choose their leader. The stakes are too high for America for the Democrats to not have their best leader in charge.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jeffries Dragged for 'Serious Leadership Problem' as Hegseth Impeachment Bid Falls 7 Votes Short With 11 Dem No-Shows
"Jeffries didn't even whip the vote," one critic said about the House minority leader, who wants to be speaker. "This is why people want a stronger leader."
Nov 10, 2026
As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries seeks to become speaker when Democrats retake Congress in January, critics questioned his leadership Tuesday after the Republican-led lower chamber effectively blocked a bid to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth by just seven votes—an outcome that may have been averted if more Democrats showed up to vote.
The 211-204 procedural vote effectively torpedoed Congressman Thomas Massie's attempt to impeach Hegseth by sending the outgoing Kentucky Republican's resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will likely gather dust during the remainder of the GOP-controlled congressional term.
The resolution seeks to impeach Hegseth for his role in waging President Donald Trump's war on Iran in contravention of the War Powers Act and apparent war crimes committed by US forces in the conflict, including the February massacre of 156 people, at least 120 of them children, in a missile strike on an elementary school in the southern city of Minab.
Massie's resolution also accuses Hegseth of "extrajudicial killings of at least 221 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters" as part of Trump's boat-bombing spree; the invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife; waging an illegal war on Yemen that has killed hundreds of civilians; and suppressing free speech at the Pentagon.
The 11 Democrats who were not present for the vote are: Julia Brownley (Calif.), Lou Correa (Calif.), Laura Gillen (NY), Steven Horsford (Nev.), Jonathan Jackson (Ill.), Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Brittany Pettersen (Colo.), Melanie Stansbury (NM), Haley Stevens (Mich.), Marilyn Strickland (Wash.), and Frederica Wilson (Fla.). Correa is recovering from an undisclosed medical procedure and cannot travel.
Seven Republicans also did not vote. Observers noted there was a chance for Democrats to keep Massie's impeachment bid alive if more of them attended the session and voted.
Jeffries (D-NY)—who backs impeaching Hegseth—"didn’t think it was important to make sure 11 Democrats didn’t skip the Hegseth impeachment vote," author Jared Yates Sexton wrote on Bluesky.
Migrant Insider editor Pablo Manríquez accused Democrats of having "a serious leadership problem."
Zeteo reporter Prem Thakker wrote on social media that Jeffries "is arguing that he should be the leader of the Democrats—and then, as the current leader, he couldn’t get enough Democrats to show up to impeach Pete Hegseth."
On Tuesday morning, Hegseth brushed off the impeachment attempt as a "farce" and "political spectacle."
"None of these are high crimes or misdemeanors," he said of the allegations against him. "They're partisan policy disagreements from people who want to politicize our military."
Hegseth also said he "stand[s] behind every one of" the massacres and killings listed in the resolution, and that he "was proud to execute them, and... would do it again tomorrow.”
Asked by Politico's Riley Rogerson about the 11 Democrats' absence, Jeffries said: "I haven't had a conversation with anyone on the floor team about what may or may not have happened in terms of the Hegseth resolution, but this is not the end of it. It's just the beginning."
While numerous Democrats said they would renew efforts to impeach Hegseth once they're in control of Congress, many observers pointed to Tuesday's vote as further evidence that new party leadership is needed.
"Jeffries didn’t even whip the vote. He told people to 'vote their conscience,' and 11 members of his caucus didn’t show up," writer Laura Bassett wrote on social media. "This is why people want a stronger leader."
Similar sentiment is dogging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), whose bid to become majority leader is opposed by a growing number of his colleagues. On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who asserted that the midterm election "was about change," and that "people want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congressman-Elect Don Leonard Says House Members Warned of ‘Living Hell’ If He Doesn’t Back Jeffries
“The ‘big-D’ Democratic Party needs some ‘little-D’ democracy,” said Rep.-elect Don Leonard, who conditioned his support for Jeffries on efforts to end the Iran War, cut off support for Israel, and end Citizens United.
Nov 10, 2026
Rep.-elect Don Leonard of Ohio said Tuesday that “senior members of the Democratic House” have threatened to make his life “a living hell” unless he backs, without conditions, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to be the next Speaker of the House.
Leonard, who flipped Ohio's heavily Republican 15th Congressional District blue last Tuesday, said he told senior party leaders that, to win his support, Jeffries would have to meet with him and his constituents to discuss two priorities. One was a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling that struck down restrictions on independent election spending by corporations and unions. The other was ending “US support for the war in Iran and the country, Israel, that led us into it.”
In a video covered by Drop Site News, Leonard said the unnamed party leaders he met with responded with threats that felt like “the stuff you see in the movies.”
Leonard explained how the Democrats told him “in no uncertain terms” that unless he supported Jeffries “regardless” of his demands, “it would basically mean both making my life a living hell for the next two years here in Washington as well as being sure to lose my election in two years.”
Leonard said he had expected to face this kind of pressure once he took office and that support from fellow Democrats might dry up if he refused to “wear the team jersey and be a good team player.”
"We're searching our hearts tonight about how we can reach Leader Jeffries and help him be a better speaker," he said. "At the end of the day, the 'big-D' Democratic Party needs some 'little-d' democracy."
"I'm just a stubborn SOB," he said. "So we'll continue meeting with our fellow members of Congress and members-elect and try and see if we can build support for what we're trying to do here."
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) depart a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on January 8, 2026. (Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
Unlike in the US Senate, where a potential leadership challenge is simmering, no House Democrat has stepped forward to take on Jeffries, who has led the caucus since succeeding former Speaker Nancy Pelosi in early 2023.
But Democratic leaders seem wary of a growing grassroots rebellion against Jeffries’ leadership. Axios reported Friday that House Democrats had been “inundated” with calls and emails urging them to oppose Jeffries’ bid for speaker.
One unnamed senior House Democrat reported receiving over 500 calls in two days. A Democratic chief of staff, also unnamed, said their office had received around 300 calls, many urging support for Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who has shown no public interest in running for speaker.
"Democrats in both chambers can't go back to business-as-usual politics," said Ezra Levin, the leader of Indivisible—a progressive advocacy group—that has called for Democrats to choose a new speaker. "People want leadership that's ready to join the rest of us in this new era of politics."
In the Senate, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is considering a challenge to Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader. Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) has said he would back Van Hollen if he runs, and several other incoming Democrats have declined to endorse Schumer.
Opponents of Schumer argue that his fealty to the Democratic donor class has led to limp opposition to President Donald Trump and resistance to positions that large majorities of Democrats support, like Medicare for All, ending military aid to Israel, and bringing a swift end to the president’s war in Iran.
The grievances against Jeffries are largely the same. As Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, summed up in August, “Jeffries’ instinct is to negotiate with the Trump power structure rather than draw lines and fight it.”
Roughly 40 Democrats would need to vote for someone else in order to prevent Jeffries from taking the gavel. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a potential 2028 presidential contender who is popular with the Democratic base, told Drop Site that organizing the votes to challenge Jeffries—as Republican holdouts did when they delayed Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker in January 2023—“should be absolutely part of the conversation” among progressive Democrats.
"But you have to remember, during that time, there was a very small margin that allowed for that kind of thing to happen,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez said that without a clear alternative, there’s “no material scenario” in which Democrats could block Jeffries from becoming speaker. She added that “in a contested race [it’s] a different situation.”
In October, RedBox Research, the polling arm of the super political action committee (PAC) A Fight Worth Having, surveyed likely voters in 31 races across 11 states. In the pooled results, only 19% wanted Jeffries as speaker, while 48% wanted “someone else.” Among Democratic respondents, 39% wanted Jeffries and 38% wanted someone else.
Writing about plans for another round of polling, Corbin Trent, a co-founder of Justice Democrats who helped conduct the October surveys, noted Tuesday in an op-ed published in Common Dreams that “support for Jeffries and Schumer is still nearly non-existent, especially where seats flipped.”
“To keep the promises these candidates made, we’ll have to take on the Democratic establishment, corporate greed, and powerful institutions," he added. "People with power and money don’t want to give it up. Unless we pull it from their death grip, we won’t get this country back on the right path.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jeffries Refuses to Say If He’ll Support Holding Up Funding Bill to Stop Iran War
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who may mount a leadership challenge against Sen. Chuck Schumer, called on Congress to “end this war now” by blocking the bill next month.
Nov 10, 2026
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to say on Monday whether he'd support holding up a spending bill next month in an effort to force President Donald Trump to end his war in Iran before Democrats retake Congress in January.
"We're going to end the war in Iran one way or the other," Jeffries (D-NY) said during a news conference Monday, but added that the appropriations process was "in the hands of" Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrats on their chambers' respective appropriations committees.
Since Republicans’ resounding defeat in last Tuesday’s midterms, Trump has fluctuated wildly between declarations that the Iran War may soon end and bellicose threats to “destroy the rest” of the country. Some Democrats have taken this as a sign that urgent action is needed even before their new majorities take office in January.
Their most immediate point of leverage is the next government funding bill, which needs to be enacted by December 11 in order to avert a government shutdown.
With Trump ignoring the war powers resolution passed by Congress earlier this year, some Democrats have said they will withhold their votes unless the next bill contains clear language prohibiting federal funds from being used to continue waging the unauthorized war.
A Reuters/Ipsos post-election survey published Monday showed that 71% of all adults supported legislation to end the war, including 51% of Republicans.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who has suggested launching a leadership challenge against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said Tuesday morning that Democrats must use their leverage to end the war as soon as possible.
"The American people have spoken loudly and clearly: We need to end the war in Iran now," Van Hollen said in a video posted to social media. "We're now 255 days into that war, a war that Donald Trump said would be over in a matter of weeks."
"What's the fastest way to end this war? Well, to stop funding it, to stop giving it the fuel it needs to keep going," he continued, pointing to the December 11 deadline for a new spending bill.
"If President Trump wants to tell the country that he'll shut down the entire government, all federal agencies, in order to keep his illegal war going, that's his decision," Van Hollen said. "But the American people have rendered their decision. Let's end this war and end it now: not a penny more."
Schumer, whom several incoming members of the Senate Democratic caucus have pledged to vote against as majority leader, has not publicly stated a position on whether he'd support using the December 11 deadline to force concessions from Trump. Last week, he told Politico he was working with Murray to “get something done” on government funding before December 11, but did not say whether he would demand a cutoff of war funding.
In a joint statement Monday, following a Democratic leadership meeting, Schumer and Jeffries pledged to “stop the reckless war of choice in Iran," but did not indicate what action they planned to take. They added that "a new day is coming on January 3."
Jeffries said last week that his goal was “to reach a spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people and prioritizes their economic well-being, health, and safety.”
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim suggested that Van Hollen’s demand for Democrats to hold up the December spending bill may put more pressure on Schumer to endorse a similar strategy. Jeffries, on the other hand, has not had his leadership role challenged, and several progressive members of Congress have said they’ll back him as speaker despite their policy disagreements.
Grim said Jeffries’ response showed he was “feeling absolutely no pressure to end this war, clearly very confident he’ll become speaker regardless.”
Since Trump launched the war in February, critics have argued that Jeffries' response was lackluster. As independent journalist Adam Johnson recounted, Jeffries focused largely on procedural objections to the war while reinforcing many of the Trump administration's justifications for it, including saying that Iran needed to be "aggressively confronted."
While Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) were pushing for a war powers resolution as Trump built an “armada” in the Middle East weeks before the start of “Operation Epic Fury,” Jeffries did not force a vote on it to occur until several days after the bombing began.
Johnson argued that Jeffries has been "at best sleepy, useless, and indifferent" in response to the war.
The anti-war group Just Foreign Policy, one of the groups that pressured Democrats to ultimately invoke the War Powers Resolution against Trump, said that cutting off funding was one of the only guaranteed ways to bring the war to an end.
The group noted that Congress' July 1973 decision to cut off funding played a decisive role in forcing President Richard Nixon to end direct combat operations elsewhere in Southeast Asia amid the US withdrawal from Vietnam.
It noted that the US bombing of Cambodia ceased the day that the funding prohibition took effect. After the House voted to restrict funding, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared, "That finishes us."
"The ONLY way to truly rein in war criminals like [Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth] and Kissinger is for Congress to be willing to force the White House to risk a government shutdown if it wants to continue the war," Just Foreign Policy said. "Time to shut the funding down like Congress did for Vietnam. Force Republicans to fund it themselves if they refuse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy