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
justice democrats
How Lack of Political Imagination Resulted in Trump Threatening to End a Civilization
We must be willing to say out loud that the Democratic Party as currently led is a huge part of the problem. The people running it have failed. They have names. Saying so isn’t radical. It’s honest.
Apr 09, 2026
I’ve been hearing from a lot of candidates and campaigns lately. This one is for them.
In 2015, I sold my food trucks to volunteer for Bernie Sanders. That turned into co-founding Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, then helping elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the US House of Representatives. I worked as her strategist and communications director for a few years after that. I’ve spent the better part of a decade pretty close to the center of the progressive movement. The following is what I learned.
Back in 2016, Hillary Clinton said Bernie Sanders’ policies were “fairy dust and rainbows.” The point wasn’t just that big things were hard. The point was that big things weren’t needed. The system was basically working. America was great. If you thought otherwise you weren’t serious, or you weren’t paying attention, or you were the kind of person who gets dismissed at Brookings as insufficiently realistic.
That was the consensus. Serious people. Credentialed people. New York Times columnists and think tank fellows and television regulars, all reading from the same hymnal. Don’t rock the boat. Take what the system offers. Be grateful.
That consensus didn’t protect us from Donald Trump. It elected him. Twice.
Because when someone came along and said the system is rigged and I’ll burn it down, 80 million people said, "Finally." They were wrong about the messenger. They were completely right about the problem. The “things are actually pretty good” position was the most destabilizing thing anyone could have said. That realism was actually radicalism. And we’re living in the results.
Progressive politics has the same capacity problem that the rest of the country does. We don’t have enough aligned people in power, and we can’t fix that one seat at a time any more than we can fix the housing crisis one subsidy at a time.
The market doesn’t work for the things people actually need to live. Not anymore. Maybe it once did. It doesn’t now and the evidence is everywhere.
We spend $6 trillion a year on healthcare. More than any country on earth, by a lot, and we rank last among wealthy nations in outcomes. Last. Tens of millions of people are one diagnosis away from financial ruin. Rural hospitals are closing. The market has had decades to fix this. It hasn’t fixed it. It has extracted wealth from it while delivering less.
Or consider the mRNA vaccines. The federal government funded the foundational research for 35 years. When COVID hit, the government paid Moderna and Pfizer billions more to finish the job and purchase the doses. Moderna and Pfizer then walked away with over $100 billion in combined revenue. The public got the bill twice, once as taxpayers funding the research, once as patients paying the prices, and the companies kept the patents.
The same pattern shows up in housing. We have been short on housing for decades. The market hasn’t built our way out of it. Cities that people actually want to live in are unaffordable. But so are the rural areas. I live in Lenoir City, Tennessee. Population about 11,000. Here a studio apartment runs you a thousand dollars a month.
And what did our nominee offer? Kamala Harris proposed a $25,000 grant for first-time home buyers. I understand the instinct. But the issue is supply. You pump $25,000 into a market that isn’t building enough homes then prices go up. The money flows straight through the buyer and into the seller or the landlord and the developer, and nothing new gets built. It’s the same story as healthcare. We keep pouring money into broken systems I assume because it seems like a logical solution. But it only makes the problem worse.
Too many people think of American problems as spending problems. But if I walked into my local grocery store and wanted 15,000 pounds of beef, it wouldn’t matter how much money I had. You can’t buy what doesn’t exist. We don’t have enough housing. We don’t have enough doctors. We don’t have enough childcare slots. Pumping money into markets that aren’t producing those things doesn’t produce them. It inflates the price of whatever scraps are left. You fix a capacity problem by building and training, not injecting more cash.
We built our way out of the Depression not just by writing checks but by doing it ourselves. The government built water and irrigation infrastructure that turned the Central Valley into the food supply for half the country. It strung electrical wire to farms and small towns across the rural South and Midwest that private utilities had written off as unprofitable. We built the industrial capacity that became the Arsenal of Democracy. That was public investment. That was us deciding some things are too important to leave to the market.
We don’t believe that anymore. Or rather, our leaders don’t. Those few that do get stopped before they can do anything about it.
AOC won. She scared people badly enough that they spent millions trying to destroy her. She had the right diagnosis. She had the right policies. She had the courage. The things she ran on didn’t happen. Not because she wasn’t good enough. Because she walked in alone. A seat won in isolation gets absorbed. The machinery of this system is designed to absorb individual attacks.
Progressive politics has the same capacity problem that the rest of the country does. We don’t have enough aligned people in power, and we can’t fix that one seat at a time any more than we can fix the housing crisis one subsidy at a time.
Which brings me to where we are. An American president is suggesting on a Tuesday night that Iran should cease to exist. Not metaphorically. And the people who are supposed to be the opposition are writing letters. That is where we end up when the people in charge have no affirmative vision, no plan to build anything, and no team capable of fighting for it even if they did.
So when people ask me about candidates, I’m not asking whether they have the right positions. Most of the good ones do. I’m asking whether they understand what those positions are actually up against. Whether they’re ready to fight it.
I’m looking for bold, specific, public policy positions. Not values. Policies. Medicare for All. Public ownership of AI infrastructure. A housing program that builds and owns, not just subsidizes. Drug pricing reform that takes back the patents on publicly-funded research so the public owns what the public paid for. You would be amazed how many candidates won’t put this out publicly.
We must be willing to say out loud that the Democratic Party as currently led is the problem. The people running it have failed. They have names. Saying so isn’t radical. It’s honest.
An understanding that our institutions have been captured. The FEC. The FDA. The SEC. The DOJ. The Supreme Court. Not neutral referees. A coordinated fifty-year project to make progressive governance legally impossible. A candidate who won’t say that isn’t ready for what’s coming.
I’m looking for bold, specific, public policy positions. Not values. Policies.
A willingness to take risks inside the party. Not fighting Republicans on television, which costs nothing. Backing primary challengers against Democratic incumbents who are blocking the agenda. Making it more dangerous to oppose you than to support you. Almost nobody will do this.
All of those are necessary. None of them are enough.
A commitment to building a team before they win. Not after. Campaigning alongside candidates in other states and districts. Endorsing across geographies. Treating their race as part of something bigger than their district. This has never been done at scale on our side. It’s the thing that would change everything.
People resist this one the most, so let me explain why it matters.
A candidate’s victory, whether it’s a House seat or a Senate seat, can only accomplish things within the framework of how big and powerful their team is, how aligned that team is, and whether they built it before they walked into the building. It has to happen before, not after, for two reasons. First, because building it before is what proves you’re willing to put skin in the game and take real risks. Anyone can talk about solidarity after they’ve won. Doing it before, when it costs you something, is what makes it mean anything. Second, because you cannot change who’s sitting at the table from inside the table. You have to build the power to change it from outside. That means committing to each other before any of you have a seat, when the only thing binding you together is the mission itself.
And it matters to voters. Candidates running on these ideas as individuals are just putting policies on a page. They’re giving speeches. When they show up with a team, when they’ve committed to each other before they’ve won anything, they’re showing voters they understand what’s standing in their way and they have a plan for taking it head on.
Nobody is coming to do this for us. It takes a team. People who said all of this out loud before they won.
Underneath all of it, public ownership as the mechanism. Not regulation. Not subsidy. Ownership. We did it before. We can do it again. When a technology has the power to transform society, it’s unwise to leave it in the hands of a tiny group of self-absorbed billionaires whose only goal is to maximize profit, who consistently show contempt for the rights and interests of their fellow Americans, and who aren’t accountable to anyone, especially with a federal government this weak. We don’t let private companies build nuclear weapons. We don’t let them decide when or how to use them. We don’t let them raise armies. We understand some things are too powerful to leave in private hands. AI is one of those things. It’s built off of thousands of years of human data and thought. It’s built off of major public investment. It’s built by us. It should be working for us. The only thing that’s got a single chance of ensuring that is if we own it. Just like Alaska gets dividends from its oil reserves, the American people should be getting dividends from their data and their investments.
Nobody is coming to do this for us. It takes a team. People who said all of this out loud before they won. Who committed to each other before they walked into Washington. Who understand that their victory only matters if the person running three states over wins too.
That team is what I’m building with A Fight Worth Having. Not candidates with good vibes. Candidates who’ve passed this filter. Who know what they’re up against. Who are ready to fight the right people, including the ones in their own party.
If you’ve been reading this and asking what do we do, this is what we do.
Go to AFightWorthHaving.com
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Cowardice in the Face of Fascism’: Fury at House Democrats Willing to Fund ICE
“We need a strong, unflinching opposition party that is united against the president’s personal paramilitary force," said Justice Democrats.
Jan 22, 2026
Even as opposition to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement reaches a fever pitch among voters and within the Democratic caucus amid report after report of abject lawlessness by the agency, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is refusing to whip the votes that would be necessary to stop the funding bill from passing as it heads to a vote on Thursday.
Democratic negotiators on the House Appropriations Committee have pushed their colleagues to accept a "compromise" bill that keeps agency funding flat while supposedly adding new "guardrails" on the agency's actions.
However, as David Dayen explained on Wednesday for the American Prospect, the bill "falls short of imposing true accountability on ICE in the wake of the murder of Renee Good in Minneapolis."
It “flat-funds” ICE at current levels for the fiscal year, although in real terms it’s an increase to the budget, because the previous year included a one-time “anomaly” of additional spending. It restricts spending on detention that could theoretically lower capacity to 41,500 beds from a proposed 50,000. And there are some limitations on what DHS can shift from other agencies into ICE. But because the bill includes no penalties or enforcing mechanisms to ensure that its funding directives are actually adhered to, these funding boundaries are not terribly meaningful.
Democratic lawmakers forced other “guardrails” into the bill, like funding for oversight of detention facilities and mandatory body cameras for ICE agents. And additional training is mandated for agents who interact with the public. But other measures, like blocking the detention and deportation of U.S. citizens or borrowing enforcement personnel from other agencies, weren’t added to the bill. And the funding, once again, is not guaranteed, given that the Trump administration has routinely withheld or shifted around funding without pushback from Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, who served as the chief negotiator for the bill, has struggled to defend it in the face of reports that ICE is abducting young children, harassing and detaining US citizens, and has been directed to break into homes without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment as a matter of policy.
“It is complicated,” DeLauro admitted during a meeting of the House Rules Committee, “when you’re both trying to govern, and you’re trying to resist what may be infringements, to thread that needle and try to be able to move forward.”
However, heading into Thursday's vote, she has maintained that a government shutdown affecting other critical agencies would be more damaging.
“I understand that many of my Democratic colleagues may be dissatisfied with any bill that funds ICE,” she said. “I share their frustration with the out-of-control agency. I encourage my colleagues to review the bill and determine what is best for their constituents and communities.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has been one of Congress' most outspoken opponents of the bill from the beginning, said that while he understands his colleagues' objections, he believes that "the political police force Trump is building at DHS—and their daily violation of the law—threatens to unwind our republic."
"It's not just Minnesota. DHS is ignoring the law everywhere," he wrote in a lengthy post on social media. "I'm just back from Texas, where DHS is thumbing their nose at the law, disappearing legal residents and kids. Why? Because there are no consequences, they think they will get a bipartisan vote to fund their illegality."
He said Democrats should be demanding more for their votes, including "stopping DHS from moving personnel—e.g. [Customs and Border Protection]—out of their budgeted missions; requiring warrants for arrests; restoring training and identification protocols." While he acknowledged that the party “had a hard job,” he said, “there are no meaningful new restraints in this bill.”
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) joined in, saying, "I will not facilitate the lawlessness of an agency that is murdering young mothers, threatening peaceful protestors with assault rifles, and kidnapping elderly Americans out of their homes."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who said he was "leading the opposition" to the bill, explained in a video posted to social media that "the ICE budget under [former President Joe Biden] was $10 billion a year. Donald Trump's Big Ugly Bill increased it by $18 billion a year for the next four years. Today, they want to memorialize that and triple ICE's budget."
"No Democrat should vote yes on this bill," he continued. "Frankly, we need to tear down the ICE agency and have a new federal agency to enforce immigration law under the Justice Department."
Acknowledging that there is not yet sufficient support on Capitol Hill to outright abolish or defund the agency, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has also called for blocking the funds and introduced its own legislation that would limit the use of force by agents.
According to the Guardian, the majority of the 213 Democratic members of the House are expected to vote against the funding bill. But for it to stand any chance of being blocked, total party unity would be necessary, and some of the 218 Republicans would either need to defect or fail to show up for the vote.
Jeffries has personally stated that he will vote against the bill, and according to two congressional sources who spoke to the Prospect, has "recommended" that other members vote against it. However, the party whip, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and her deputies have not been directed to bring the rest of the caucus into line with that position.
In a statement issued Thursday, Jeffries, Clark, and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) again said they personally planned to vote no on the appropriations bill but gave no guidance to their colleagues.
A source tracking the legislation on Capitol Hill told the Prospect that many Democrats in swing districts are planning to vote for the legislation because "they’re terrified of being labeled anti-law enforcement" and "want this to go away so they can talk about the cost of living more. Problem is, it’s not going away.”
Their hesitation comes despite public outrage toward ICE reaching an all-time high, with more of the public now wanting to abolish the agency outright than to keep it, according to a poll conducted earlier this month by YouGov.
Murphy has contended that "the public wants us to make a real fight to stop Trump's abuse of power and to restore humanity and legality to ICE operations," adding, "I don't think a no vote would be out of step with the public. In fact, it's what they demand: accountability for what's happening."
New Republic editor Aaron Regunberg echoed this, encouraging Democrats to "pick the goddamn fight!"
"Americans don’t like what ICE is doing," he said. "This is clearly the kind of playing field in which a fight—which drives further attention towards ICE’s abuses—is advantageous.
In a statement to Common Dreams, the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats described Jeffries' refusal to push against the bill as "cowardice in the face of fascism."
"We need a strong, unflinching opposition party that is united against the president’s personal paramilitary force," the group said. "Instead, Jeffries is willing to let multiple Democrats vote with Republicans to pass this funding, funneling even more of our tax dollars into state-sponsored terrorism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Venezuela, for the American Oil Companies, Will Be a Field Day,' Says US Lawmaker Pushing Invasion
"They're not even hiding it anymore. A US-led regime change war abroad to line the pockets of Big Oil—where have we heard this one before?"
Nov 24, 2025
"Going to war for oil, the sequel."
That's how one film and television producer responded to a Monday clip of US Rep. María Salazar (R-Fla.) discussing President Donald Trump's potential military invasion of Venezuela on Fox Business.
Amid mounting alarm that Trump may take military action, Salazar said there were three reasons why "we need to go in" to the South American country. The first, she said, is that "Venezuela, for the American oil companies, will be a field day."
After journalist Aaron Rupar noted her remarks on social media, many critics weighed in, including Justice Democrats, which works to elect progressives to Congress.
"They're not even hiding it anymore. A US-led regime change war abroad to line the pockets of Big Oil—where have we heard this one before?" the group said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.
Fred Wellman, a US Army combat veteran and podcast host running as a Democrat in Missouri's 2nd Congressional District, replied on social media: "They are sending our troops to war for the oil companies and not even pretending to lie about it. These sick SOBs are going to get our kids killed and it's all a big joke."
Salazar also described Venezuela as a launching pad for enemies of the US and claimed the country's president, Nicolás Maduro, leads the alleged Cartel de los Soles, or the Cartel of the Suns—which the Trump administration on Monday designated as a foreign terrorist organization.
Venezuela's interior and justice minister, Diosdado Cabello, has long claimed the cartel doesn't exist, calling it an "invention." As the UK's BBC reported Monday:
Cabello, who is alleged to be one of the high-ranking members of the cartel, has accused US officials of using it as an excuse to target those they do not like.
"Whenever someone bothers them, they name them as the head of the Cartel de los Soles," he said in August.
Gustavo Petro, the left-wing president of Venezuela's neighbour, Colombia, has also denied the cartel's existence.
"It is the fictional excuse of the far right to bring down governments that do not obey them," he wrote on X in August.
The terrorist designation and Salazar's comments came as the Trump administration is under fire for blowing up boats it claims are running drugs off the coast of Venezuela, and after a CBS News/YouGov survey showed on Sunday that 70% of Americans—including 91% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans—are against the "US taking military action in Venezuela."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular