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
Weekly-Opinion
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
10 Reasons Chuck Schumer Should Not Be Senate Majority Leader
The voters have spoken. They want more than a change in which party controls Congress—they want a change in direction, a break from politics as usual, and leaders willing to challenge entrenched power.
Nov 10, 2026
Democrats have just won back control of Congress, delivering a major rebuke to Donald Trump and his policies. But now comes another critical question: Who should lead the new Democratic majority? Let’s look at the Senate.
Chuck Schumer has been in Congress for nearly 46 years—18 in the House and almost 28 in the Senate. He has led Senate Democrats since 2017 and is already declaring that he expects to be reelected majority leader.
But the public is clamoring for new leadership. A recent NBC News poll found that just 13% of voters view Schumer favorably! While most sitting senators seem reluctant to oppose him, eight newly elected Democratic senators—Abdul El-Sayed, Peggy Flanagan, Troy Jackson, Juliana Stratton, Adam Hamilton, James Talarico, Chris Pappas, and Annie Andrews—have either openly opposed Chuck Schumer or withheld their support. And there is a possibility that Senator Van Hollen will put his hat in the ring.
In addition to 10 reasons that Hakeem Jeffries should not be the next Speaker of the House, here are 10 reasons why Schumer should not lead Democrats in the US Senate.
1. He continues to defend Israel
Few issues demonstrate the growing divide between Democratic leaders and their progressive base more clearly than Israel.
Schumer has described himself as a Shomer Yisrael, a guardian of Israel, pledging to fulfill that role “unflinchingly, unstintingly and with all of my strength.” In a March 2024 Senate speech, delivered as Israel's assault on Gaza was provoking worldwide outrage, Schumer declared, “We love Israel in our bones,” and described establishment of the state of Israel as one of the most heartfelt causes of his life.
He has condemned the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and encouraged states to take action against boycotts of Israel.
According to OpenSecrets, Chuck Schumer has received more than $1.7 million in campaign contributions from pro-Israel interests over his congressional career, placing him among the largest recipients of such funding.
In July 2025, as images of starvation and mass civilian suffering in Gaza horrified the world, Bernie Sanders forced Senate votes on resolutions blocking certain weapons sales to Israel. In an extraordinary shift, a majority of Senate Democrats supported restrictions on those transfers. Schumer voted against both resolutions.
Schumer has criticized Netanyahu and Israeli settler violence, yet he continues to support weapons sales to Israel and has not called for ending the nearly $4 billion in annual U.S. military aid—something that, ironically, both Trump and Netanyahu have suggested. Nor has he publicly opposed Section 1217 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which would deepen U.S.-Israeli military integration through joint weapons research, technology development, and defense production.
There’s no way Schumer would lead the Senate in carrying out what the voters want: An end to support for Israel.
2. His career is deeply intertwined with Wall Street, corporate donors, and PACs
Schumer's relationships with wealthy donors are among the most consequential features of his political career. Representing New York, the center of American finance, he has cultivated close ties with Wall Street executives, major banks, investment firms, and powerful corporate interests. His 2022 reelection campaign raised nearly $38 million, including hundreds of thousands of dollars from PACs and employees associated with financial giants Blackstone, KKR, and BlackRock.
These connections go far beyond campaign contributions. Between 1989 and 2010 alone, Schumer received nearly $9 million from the securities and investment industry. In 2007, he helped obstruct efforts to close the notorious carried-interest loophole, which allows wealthy private-equity managers to pay preferential tax rates on certain earnings. That same year, he championed proposals to ease Wall Street regulations—just before the financial crisis devastated millions of American families.
These corporate donors aren't giving money out of charity. They have billions at stake in congressional decisions on taxes, healthcare, financial regulation, and military spending. Schumer may talk about standing up for working people, but how can Democrats credibly challenge corporate greed and Wall Street power when their leader has spent decades cultivating the very industries they claim to confront?
3. He has refused to embrace Medicare for All
Millions of Americans struggle with medical debt, insurance denials, enormous deductibles, and the constant fear that illness could destroy their financial security. Schumer identified healthcare affordability as one of five major priorities for the new Democratic Congress. Yet he has refused to embrace the real solution: Medicare for All.
In April 2025, Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to establish such a comprehensive national health program that could save an estimated $1 trillion a year by cutting out private insurance companies while guaranteeing healthcare for everyone. Among its original cosponsors were Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Jeff Merkley, and Schumer's fellow New York senator, Kirsten Gillibrand.
Schumer was conspicuously absent and never brought the bill to a Senate floor vote, even when Democrats controlled the chamber.
Instead, he has focused on expanding the Affordable Care Act, providing subsidies to make private insurance more affordable, and lowering prescription drug costs. But those policies preserve a system in which private insurance companies retain enormous power over patients' access to healthcare.
It’s no mystery why. Schumer has received millions in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical and insurance industry interests.
The Democrats–indeed the country–need a leader who will start laying the groundwork for Medicare for All now so it can become a reality in 2029 under a new president.
4. He has failed to champion a new generation of progressive leaders
At a time when voters are demanding bold new leadership, Chuck Schumer has repeatedly failed to embrace progressive candidates who are energizing the Democratic Party.
Perhaps the most glaring example is Zohran Mamdani. Even after Mamdani won the Democratic primary for New York City mayor and inspired an extraordinary grassroots movement, Schumer NEVER endorsed him. Even on Election Day, he refused to say whether he had voted for his own party's nominee. What an astonishing failure by New York's senior senator to support such an exciting new leader!
In Michigan, Schumer backed establishment favorite Haley Stevens over progressive Abdul El-Sayed, who defeated her in the Democratic Senate primary. Just two days before the general election, Stevens shocked Democrats by endorsing Republican Mike Rogers. Schumer condemned her betrayal, but the episode raised serious questions about his political judgment.
In Florida, progressive Angie Nixon proved to be a remarkable candidate, coming within three percentage points of defeating Republican Senator Ashley Moody in a state Trump had won by 13 points. Bernie Sanders held four rallies for Nixon, but the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee provided no financial assistance. Schumer failed to champion a candidate who, with stronger national support, might have delivered one of the election's most stunning victories.
In Mississippi, Scott Colom mounted an extraordinary challenge to Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith in a state that hasn't elected a Democratic senator since 1982. Yet national party support came only late in the campaign, despite Colom's unexpectedly strong showing.
These races raise a fundamental question: Why does Schumer repeatedly fail to recognize and invest in dynamic candidates who could transform the Democratic Party? Instead of nurturing emerging talent, he has too often backed establishment favorites or stood on the sidelines while grassroots movements lead the way..
5. He is a supporter of the military-industrial complex
While Americans struggle with soaring living costs, Washington continues pouring extraordinary sums into the Pentagon and the military contractors that profit from war.
For fiscal year 2027, Trump proposed an astonishing $1.5 trillion military budget. Schumer opposed the increase but has not made significant cuts to military spending a central Democratic priority.
Schumer has also been an unwavering defender of NATO and a leading advocate for military assistance to Ukraine. He has repeatedly attacked Trump for being “soft on Russia,” demanding tougher sanctions against Moscow and greater military support for Ukraine. He helped push through tens of billions of dollars in military aid and opposed interruptions in weapons shipments. Rather than making negotiations to end the war his central priority, Schumer has consistently emphasized military assistance, economic pressure, and strengthening NATO.
The next Democratic majority should challenge the enormous power of the military-industrial complex and redirect resources toward healthcare, housing, education, and other urgent needs. This is unlikely to happen with Chuck Schumer at the helm.
6. He won’t call for ICE to be dismantled
While Trump has escalated his immigration crackdown, Schumer has focused primarily on calls to reform ICE rather than abolish the agency. Senator Ed Markey has explicitly demanded that ICE be defunded and abolished, while Bernie Sanders has called for eliminating tens of billions in additional funding. Senator Andy Kim has repeatedly visited detention facilities, spoken directly with detainees, and fought to shut down Newark's notorious Delaney Hall. Senator Chris Van Hollen even traveled to El Salvador to fight for the return of a wrongfully deported Maryland resident.
Schumer has spoken out against ICE abuses, opposed a new detention facility in New York, and helped advocate for the release of Bronx student Dylan Lopez Contreras. But as Senate Democratic leader, his approach has centered on reforming ICE rather than dismantling it.
That is simply not enough. With Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump's mass deportation agenda and one of the most virulently anti-immigrant figures in American politics, now elevated to White House chief of staff, the danger to immigrant communities has only intensified. This is no time for timid reforms or half-measures. Democrats need Senate leadership willing to demand the abolition of ICE.
7. He voted for the disastrous Iraq War
In October 2002, Schumer voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.
In the lead-up to the Iraq War, millions of Americans took to the streets in protest, including hundreds of thousands in New York City on February 15, 2003, in one of the largest anti-war demonstrations in U.S. history. Despite this massive outpouring of opposition from his own constituents, Schumer had voted to authorize the disastrous war and went on to support billions of dollars in additional war funding.
The invasion, launched on the basis of lies about weapons of mass destruction, became one of America's greatest foreign policy disasters. It killed enormous numbers of Iraqis, displaced millions, destabilized the region, and cost the United States trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives.
The historical record matters, especially as Congress again confronts questions of war, presidential power, and military intervention. His vote to authorize that disastrous war remains an essential part of evaluating his foreign policy judgment.
8. He opposed Obama's landmark Iran nuclear agreement
In 2015, Schumer broke with President Barack Obama to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement, widely regarded as Obama's signature foreign policy achievement. The deal was a major diplomatic breakthrough, designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons without resorting to war. Yet Schumer sided with Republicans and hardline opponents of the agreement, provoking a fierce backlash from progressives and supporters of diplomacy.
His opposition raises an important question today: Does Schumer genuinely support a diplomatic resolution to the war with Iran, or is his opposition primarily driven by the fact that it is Trump's war? His record of opposing one of the most significant diplomatic opportunities with Iran casts doubt on his commitment to pursuing diplomacy over military confrontation.
9. He has a history of giving in to Trump
In March 2025, Democrats faced one of their first major confrontations with Trump's second administration. Republicans pushed through a government funding bill that Democrats had little role in writing, while Trump and Elon Musk were dismantling federal agencies and threatening essential public services.
Democrats had leverage in the Senate, where Republicans needed their votes to overcome a filibuster. But rather than insist on concessions, Schumer announced he would help advance the Republican bill.
The backlash was enormous. Progressive organizations called for his resignation, House Democrats erupted in anger, and even Nancy Pelosi publicly broke with Schumer.
Schumer argued that a government shutdown would give Trump and Musk even more freedom to dismantle the federal government. But his critics saw a fundamental failure of leadership: Democrats had an opportunity to confront the administration and instead helped pass its funding legislation.
The episode became a defining moment in Schumer's leadership—and a source of lasting doubts about how aggressively he will confront Trump in future battles.
10. He has failed to challenge the corporate power driving inequality and environmental destruction
Schumer's record reflects the limits of an establishment Democratic Party that too often compromises with powerful corporate interests.
In 2022, Schumer struck a deal with Senator Joe Manchin to fast-track energy projects, including fossil fuel infrastructure, provoking outrage from environmental justice groups. In 2024, he championed a bipartisan immigration bill that would have sharply restricted asylum protections.
And now, in November 2026, Schumer voted to advance legislation that environmental groups have dubbed the “dirty data center deal.” The bill would accelerate permitting for massive AI data centers, pipelines, and other energy infrastructure while weakening environmental protections. Tribal leaders warn that it would also undermine tribal sovereignty by weakening consultation requirements and making it harder for Indigenous communities to protect their ancestral lands, cultural heritage, and sacred sites. Despite protests by environmental and Indigenous rights groups, Schumer voted to move the legislation forward, arguing that the bill could lower energy costs.
Democrats face a fundamental choice between accommodating powerful industries and protecting communities, workers, and the environment.
Schumer’s incremental reforms in areas such as climate investments, prescription drugs, and infrastructure legislation are no substitute for confronting the enormous power of corporations and billionaires.
The voters have spoken. They want more than a change in which party controls Congress—they want a change in direction, a break from politics as usual, and leaders willing to challenge entrenched power.
Will Democrats in the Senate embrace the change voters demanded, or return to the same old leadership that has failed to deliver it?
Keep ReadingShow Less
10 Reasons Hakeem Jeffries Should Not Be House Speaker
Voters did not reject Republican extremism just to see Democratic leaders continue pouring billions into wars and corporate interests while families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and basic necessities.
Nov 09, 2026
Now that Democrats have swept the House, a key question is: Who should lead it?
Hakeem Jeffries is in line to become the first Black Speaker of the House, which would be a historic milestone. But members of Congress must examine Jeffries' record, his priorities, and the kind of leadership he would bring to this moment.
Here are ten reasons why Jeffries should not be Speaker.
1. He has abandoned Medicare for All
At a time when millions of Americans struggle with unaffordable health insurance, medical debt, and the threat of financial ruin from illness, Jeffries has distanced himself from one of the most important progressive reforms: Medicare for All.
Jeffries co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation from 2013 through 2021. But in an August 2026 interview on NBC's Meet the Press, he said it is no longer legislation he supports or cosponsors. Ironically, he made that statement on the same day a CBS poll found that 90 percent of Democratic voters back the idea.
This reversal puts him at odds with party voters, but also with a majority of Democratic representatives in the House. As of late October, Rep. Pramila Jayapal's Medicare for All Act had 118 Democratic cosponsors. A “leader” who won’t back what his own caucus and voters want is not a leader.
2. He refuses to break with Israel
Perhaps nowhere is Jeffries more out of step with the progressive base than on Israel.
For decades, Jeffries has been a staunch defender of the U.S.-Israel alliance. At a pro-Israel rally in 2014, during Israel's military assault on Gaza, Jeffries proclaimed, “Israel today, Israel tomorrow, Israel forever!.” In 2020 he told an AIPAC conference that New Yorkers consider Jerusalem their “sixth borough,” totally disregarding the plight of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.
Even as Israel's genocide in Gaza sparked worldwide outrage, Jeffries continued to resist calls to end U.S. military support.
In July 2026, 103 House Democrats voted to cut $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel, including the party's second-ranking House leader, Katherine Clark. But Jeffries joined 97 other Democrats and nearly every Republican in voting to preserve the funding.
In a May 2024 60 Minutes interview, when asked whether Israel's bombing of Gaza had been indiscriminate, Jeffries said no. By then, nearly 35,000 Palestinians had been killed. When the interviewer pressed him, saying, "You seem reluctant to criticize Israel at all," Jeffries responded, "I'm dealing with the facts on the ground."
Jeffries has also refused to cosponsor the Block the Bombs Act, which would restrict transfers of some of the deadliest offensive weapons to Israel, including 2,000-pound bombs, bunker busters, precision-guidance kits, and tank and artillery rounds. As of November 2026, the bill has 82 Democratic cosponsors and the endorsement of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Caucus Chair Greg Casar has pledged to push for a floor vote if Democrats regain the majority. Yet Jeffries has not signed on, and as Speaker, he would have enormous power to determine whether the bill ever receives a vote.
While Jeffries has acknowledged that U.S. policy toward Israel needs to change, he continues to support Israel's military superiority and joint missile-defense programs. He has also refused to condemn Section 219 of the NDAA, which would further integrate U.S. and Israeli military research, technology, and production.
Ironically, both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have recently suggested that the U.S. should stop giving Israel nearly $4 billion a year because “Israel doesn't need it.” Whether or not we believe them, it is striking that we have yet to hear a similar call from Hakeem Jeffries.
3. He has failed to champion major cuts to the obscene Pentagon budget
At a time when Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities, Trump is demanding a staggering $1.5 trillion military budget—an increase of nearly $600 billion, or 66 percent, over the previous year's base funding. Yet Jeffries has not made substantially reducing Pentagon spending a central priority of Democratic leadership.
Yes, he has opposed funding for Trump's war in Iran but he is a staunch advocate of continued U.S. military aid to Ukraine and has sharply criticized Trump for failing to provide sufficient support. He said “America is stronger when Russia is weaker.” In September 2026, he pledged that Democrats would continue backing Ukraine “until victory is won,” signaling his commitment to greater U.S. involvement and military assistance instead of a commitment to a diplomatic solution that would end that terrible war.
Jeffries is also an enthusiastic defender of the aggressive alliance NATO, which should have dissolved when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. He has called NATO “the most successful military and diplomatic alliance in the history of the world.” NATO, at Trump’s insistence, has called for all members to dramatically increase their military budgets to 5 percent of their GDP (the US is presently at 3.1 percent).
Jeffries’ ties to the military-industrial complex are particularly troubling. During the 2026 election cycle alone, Jeffries' campaign reportedly received approximately $212,000 from military PACs.
Democrats cannot simply promise better healthcare, affordable housing, quality education and climate action while supporting a massive military budget. Real change requires shifting resources from weapons and war to the needs of ordinary people. The next Democratic Speaker must be prepared to challenge the military-industrial complex.
4. He continues to accept pro-Israel lobby money
Jeffries's position on Israel cannot be separated from his longstanding political relationship with the AIPAC lobby.
At a time when AIPAC funding has become toxic and so many Democratic candidates rejected AIPAC money, Jeffries has maintained his ties to the organization.
According to Track AIPAC, Hakeem Jeffries has received more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions from AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups over his congressional career. During the 2026 election cycle alone, his campaign received nearly $300,000 in contributions from pro-Israel PACs.He has also taken five AIPAC-sponsored trips to Israel since arriving in Congress.
Following the November elections, AIPAC publicly celebrated Jeffries as one of the candidates it supported.
How can congressional Democrats be led by someone so closely tied to AIPAC, a lobby increasingly toxic to their own voters?
5. His Backroom Dealings with Jared Kushner Raise Serious Questions About His Judgment
At a time when Americans are demanding investigations into the Trump family's financial dealings, Hakeem Jeffries chose to sit down privately with Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and influential adviser.
In August 2026, reports revealed that Jeffries had met with Kushner to discuss possible cooperation on housing, immigration and affordability. Yet Kushner, who holds no official government position, continues to wield influence over U.S. foreign policy while maintaining lucrative financial relationships with Gulf governments through his investment firm.
House Judiciary Committee Democrat Jamie Raskin has already launched an investigation into Kushner's foreign financial entanglements, demanding documents and communications about his dealings with foreign governments. So why was Jeffries meeting with him behind closed doors?
With Democrats taking control of the House in January, they need a speaker committed to untangling the dirty web of corruption committed by Trump and his inner circle.
6. He Has Elevated Warhawks to Key Foreign-Policy Positions
You can tell a political leader's priorities by whom they put in power. And Jeffries's choices speak volumes.
In August 2026, Democratic leaders elevated Rep. Jared Moskowitz, one of the House's most outspoken pro-Israel hawks, to the top Democratic position on the powerful House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. Moskowitz has been an unwavering defender of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, continued U.S. weapons shipments, and Israel’s brutal military operations in Lebanon. He has also openly supported both Israeli attacks on Iran and Trump's 2025 bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, and initially opposed congressional efforts to prevent the 2026 war before later backing War Powers restrictions.
With Democrats in control of the House, Moskowitz will be positioned to chair the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, wielding significant influence over congressional oversight and policy toward Israel, Palestine, Iran, and the entire region.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Wesley Bell, two other staunch defenders of Israel, were added to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Bell had defeated progressive Rep. Cori Bush in 2024 after massive spending by AIPAC's super PAC. Progressives are still steaming over the role of Wasserman Schultz in undermining Bernie Sanders during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.
The backlash to these appointments was immediate. Rep. Ro Khanna warned, "Don't put Israel hawks out of touch with our voters in charge of our Middle East policy." The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the appointments as an insult to voters and an attempt to shield Israel from accountability for its actions in Gaza.
7. Jeffries Represents the Democratic Party's Dependence on Corporate Money
The Democratic Party claims to fight for working people, but Jeffries remains deeply connected to the wealthy corporate interests that dominate Washington.
His campaign has benefited from millions of dollars in contributions associated with Wall Street, pharmaceutical and insurance companies, real estate interests, Big Tech and military contractors.
These financial relationships raise a fundamental question: How aggressively will Democrats challenge corporate greed, Wall Street speculation, soaring healthcare costs and the military-industrial complex when their leader maintains such close ties to these powerful interests?
Progressive Democrats have demonstrated that grassroots organizing and small-dollar fundraising offer an alternative to corporate PAC money.
The Democratic Party cannot credibly promise to take on corporate power without confronting the influence of big money within its own leadership.
8. He has defended the Democratic establishment against progressive challengers
Jeffries has a long history of protecting entrenched Democratic incumbents against progressive challengers.
In 2020, he backed longtime pro-Israel congressman Eliot Engel against Jamaal Bowman, who defeated Engel in a stunning primary upset. In 2022, Jeffries traveled to Chicago to campaign for veteran Congressman Danny Davis against young progressive organizer Kina Collins, who came within seven percentage points of victory.
And in 2026, Jeffries backed Dan Goldman, Adriano Espaillat and Shri Thanedar against progressive challengers Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Donavan McKinney. All three incumbents lost their primaries, and all three challengers went on to win in November.
This pattern is no coincidence. In 2021, Jeffries joined forces with centrist Democrats Josh Gottheimer and Terri Sewell to establish Team Blue PAC, designed to protect Democratic incumbents against primary challengers.
While voters are demanding a new direction, Jeffries has repeatedly sided with the establishment candidates they rejected.
9. He Wants to Reform ICE, Not Abolish It
As ICE agents terrorize immigrant communities, separate families and carry out violent raids, the question of how to dismantle Trump's cruel mass-deportation machinery has become increasingly urgent.
Jeffries has condemned ICE's brutality and demanded greater accountability. But he has stopped short of calling for the abolition of ICE or the dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security, insisting instead that these agencies can be reformed.
Contrast that with Rep. Delia Ramirez's groundbreaking Reimagining Safety Act, which would abolish ICE, dismantle DHS and establish a new Department of Community Safety, redirecting resources toward housing, healthcare and community well-being. Her legislation challenges the very definition of national security, arguing that real safety comes from meeting people's needs, not militarizing their communities.
This is the kind of bold, visionary leadership that offers a fundamental alternative to simply “reforming” an out-of-control immigration enforcement system that is terrorizing immigrant communities.
10. He Has Failed to Champion Bold Climate Action
As devastating wildfires consume entire communities, record-breaking heat waves threaten lives, and floods and droughts wreak havoc across the country, the climate crisis demands bold, urgent leadership—not business as usual.
Yet Jeffries has refused to endorse the Green New Deal or champion demands to halt the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure and eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the oil and gas industry. In 2022, when more than 70 House Democrats publicly opposed legislation to fast-track fossil fuel projects, Jeffries declined to join them.
More recently, he has distanced himself from calls for a moratorium on new AI data centers, even as a powerful grassroots movement is sweeping the country, with communities organizing against these energy-guzzling facilities that drain water supplies, drive up electricity bills, strain power grids and threaten the environment.
Jeffries supported the Inflation Reduction Act's clean-energy investments, but he has not embraced the more ambitious climate agenda advocated by progressive lawmakers and community groups.
At a time when climate disasters are destroying homes, livelihoods and entire communities, the Democratic Party needs leadership with the urgency and ambition to confront the climate crisis.
A Democratic Majority Deserves Progressive Leadership
More than any single vote, contribution, or appointment, the problem with Hakeem Jeffries is the establishment politics he represents—politics that protect the powerful, accommodate corporate interests, and offer timid reforms when the country is crying out for transformative change.
Voters did not reject Republican extremism just to see Democratic leaders continue pouring billions into wars and corporate interests while families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and basic necessities.
And the grassroots are making their voices heard. In just a few days, more than one million people have signed a petition demanding new leadership. Congressional offices are being inundated with calls, and several incoming Democrats—including Melat Kiros, Claire Valdez, Chris Rabb, and Adam Hamawy—are withholding support for Jeffries.
The Speaker of the House holds enormous power. That power can be used to confront the military-industrial complex, challenge corporate money and AIPAC, stand up for immigrants, and put human needs ahead of endless wars. Or it can be used to protect the very system that has brought us to this crisis.
That’s why we need a new generation of leadership willing to fight for real change.
Sign the petition demanding new leadership. Call your member of Congress at 202-224-3121.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Voters Have Spoken—And Now Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries Must Go
Democrats have said loudly and clearly that they want new leadership. Unfortunately, too many of the people in Washington aren’t listening.
Nov 06, 2026
On Tuesday, Democratic voters, independent voters, and even some Republican voters spoke loudly and clearly: they want this country to go in a different direction.
This is an amazing, unprecedented moment in my lifetime. I’m 46 years old, and this is the most hopeful political moment I’ve ever experienced.
However, the Democratic leadership we have today is completely ill-suited for this moment. They do not have the vision for what it’s going to take to rebuild the trust the American people have lost in their government, their institutions, and the Democratic Party itself.
Democrats have spoken loudly and clearly that they want new leadership. Unfortunately, too many of the people in Washington aren’t listening.
We’re going to do our dead-level best to make sure they hear us and make sure they see the names. We’re going to start sending text messages, running ads, and getting loud. We’re going to get in their faces and make it impossible to ignore what Democrats, independents, and the voters who delivered this Democratic tsunami are demanding: new leadership.
Chuck Schumer is bad at his job. Hakeem Jeffries is not ready for this moment. He is not the leader we need.
It's time for them to go.
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