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
alexandria ocasio-cortez
'Too Bad for Them': AOC Responds to Right-Wing 'Freak-out' Over Decision to Freeze Her Eggs
"I go after what I want, but maybe that’s what they don’t like," said the congresswoman.
Aug 14, 2026
It's been five days since US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a potential 2028 presidential contender, went public with her decision to freeze her eggs.
But the response from right-wing influencers and operatives has already given her an opportunity to turn the discussion of her fertility into one that addresses Republican policies driving the affordability crisis, questions how committed the right really is to "freedom," and points out conservatives' hypocrisy when they urge women to "have babies younger"—while applying little of the same pressure to young men.
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced her decision to freeze her eggs last Sunday with the first in a series of Instagram videos in which her nearly 10 million followers have been able to follow along as she injects hormones and attends ultrasound appointments in preparation for the procedure—all while appearing on news programs to discuss foreign and domestic policy and talking to her followers about the side effects as well as the cost of fertility preservation treatment.
"I want you all to see that, because women can do anything,” Ocasio-Cortez, often known as AOC, told her followers. “And I think it’s badass that I’m going to be, you know, giving myself shots in the greenroom, get my glam on, roll out, talk about international events, domestic policy, elections, pop out, live my life, do my thing.”
Right-wing commentators who have bemoaned low birth rates and attacked liberal women for buying "into the feminist lie and spend[ing] their childbearing years climbing the career ladder," as podcaster Katie Miller said, immediately pounced on AOC's decision.
Allie Beth Stuckey, a popular right-wing podcaster and author of the books Toxic Empathy and You're Not Enough (And That's Okay), the latter of which warned against "the toxic culture of self-love," responded to the 36-year-old progressive congresswoman's videos with a list of reasons she should have already had children. She accused AOC of being "selfish and irresponsible" for potentially becoming a mother after 40 and said she was "glamorizing the lie that women can have it all."
Miller, the wife of President Donald Trump's homeland security adviser, Stephen Miller, allowed that "we should celebrate" a woman's efforts to have children in the future, but said that “more women should get married and have babies younger," while a spokesperson for Turning Point USA, the right-wing group founded by the late Charlie Kirk, said AOC's fertility decisions were a "cautionary tale" for women.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who is said to have considerable influence in the White House, announced that AOC had "failed as a woman" and had “wasted her entire 30s living with a man pretending to be engaged when she could have gotten married and had a baby." (It was reported this week that AOC's long-term relationship had ended.)
Some conservatives questioned whether attacking the popular, social media-savvy lawmaker over her desire to have children was a wise move for the MAGA movement, with one former Office of the Director of National Intelligence official, Alexa Henning, telling The Times in the UK that "dunking on AOC for freezing her eggs is not a winning message with women voters."
On Thursday evening, Ocasio-Cortez suggested Henning was right to be concerned, as she posted her latest Instagram video on the topic.
She said she has found "the freak-out" around her egg-freezing process to be "pretty funny," because "my choice is a threat to them."
"Despite the rhetoric they use and the bald eagles that they plaster all over the place, they actually really do not believe in a free country," said AOC. "Very aggressively do not believe in a free country, because they attack everyone who exercises their freedom to choose all sorts of lives... They attack those who choose the life that they don't lead or a life that they don't approve of."
"And people say you’re peddling this 'dangerous lie that women can have it all.' You know, maybe in life you can’t have everything, but here’s the secret: You can have a hell of a lot. And I am very grateful for my life. I go after what I want, but maybe that’s what they don’t like either," she continued, before shrugging: "Too bad for them."
AOC: I also find the freakout around it pretty funny as well. I’m not gonna lie. A commentator that was like, “What she’s doing is peddling the dangerous lie that women can have it all.” Can you believe that?
What I find funny is that my choice is a threat to them. Despite the… pic.twitter.com/rwpPL8YH0F
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2026
She emphasized that the procedure "is not a guarantee" that she'll be able to use the eggs to have children later in life, but said the process had relieved "a certain amount of anxiety or stress that can come with feeling like you are in a race against biology that men simply don't have to engage in."
She then took aim at commentators like Stuckey and Miller for directing their pronatalist pressure campaigns disproportionately at young women.
"In straight relationships, who are you supposed to be having babies with?" said AOC. "They aren't pressuring men to be ready to have a baby young, as the way that they are pressuring women to have a baby when they're young."
AOC: For all of these right-wing people who are harping about women having to and needing to have families at a young age—and again, if that’s your choice, that’s amazing—but they are doing nothing to make sure that men in their culture respect and value women.
In fact, many of… pic.twitter.com/ox70tJzth1
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2026
The congresswoman then suggested that while Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk's widow and now the CEO of Turning Point USA, recently told a crowd of young college graduates to "have more kids than you can afford," financial concerns may play a role in falling birthrates and delayed parenthood. Housing unaffordability has soared to record highs in recent years, while Trump's tariff policies and war in Iran have contributed to rising costs for groceries, gas, and other essentials. Republicans have also attacked government healthcare programs including Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies, and about a third of Americans reported cutting back on spending in order to afford healthcare last year.
"The basics are more expensive than they've ever been," said Ocasio-Cortez. "For a lot of people, we would have kids at a much younger age if the conditions were right, if women got paid equally, and if people in general were paid enough and things were affordable enough that you feel like you could comfortably provide for a child."
With her series of videos, said Amanda Litman, executive director of the political action committee Run for Something, AOC had opened up "a larger conversation on women, ambition, family, gender politics, and so much more."
Journalist Zaid Jilani suggested right-wing commentators had fallen into a trap: "Intentionally or unintentionally she got the Republicans to act really weird."
The response from influential commentators on the right "is why her allies think she could run for the White House," wrote Katy Balls, Washington editor for The Times. "Her ability to set the terms of debate and trigger the right just as Trump does the left."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can AOC Win the Working Class?
Before running for president, she needs to prove she can build a national workng-class coalition.
Aug 13, 2026
The bandwagon for Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for president is rolling. She appears to have all the requisite qualities for success—smart, charismatic, passionate about her beliefs, and wildly popular among students and the left as well as among college-educated liberals. She is positioned as the successor to Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders after their successful Fighting Oligarchy series of rallies last year. And as a national candidate she could carry the social democratic banner forward, bringing, at the very least, tens of thousands of new members into the Democratic Socialists of America.
Bhaskar Sunkara, the founding editor of Jacobin, believes AOC “can run a serious national campaign on the left and pull a movement behind it,” but in making his case he also points out a major shortcoming—she is not really a working-class candidate and doesn’t have a visceral understanding of class.
Sunkara frankly acknowledges that AOC, unlike Bernie, “sometimes drift(s) into the dialect of the progressive nonprofit and academic world, using terms more familiar in seminar rooms than union halls.”
For example, he points to the congresswoman’s response in 2022 to Democrats who objected to the use of Latinx, a term used by only about 3% of Hispanics. Sunkara says, “She suggested “Latine” as an improvement—a solution to a problem most Latinos didn’t know they had.”
Progressive dreams cannot become reality without extensive working-class support.
AOC’s promotion of the Green New Deal attempted to bridge the concerns of environmentalists and members concerned about social justice issues but suffered from her failure to frame it in terms of class. Sunkara describes her floor resolution as almost a parady of balkanized intersectionality discourse, He writes:
That resolution promised to repair the historic oppression of Indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, elderly people, unhoused people, people with disabilities, and youth. Of course, nobody on that list is unwronged. But itemizing members of the same economic class as discrete interest groups was the opposite of how the 2016 Sanders campaign spoke, and of how the left traditionally has. It was the scholarly language of intersectionality, not the commonsense solidarity she was trying to inspire.
Nevertheless, Sunkara is all in on an AOC candidacy in 2028.
I’m not.
My biggest concern is that we have scant evidence that AOC can succeed among working-class voters, especially white working-class voters. She has won election four times in an overwhelmingly Democratic district that is 52% Hispanic and only 18% white. New York’s 14th Congressional District, created in 2012, has never elected a Republican. Its predecessor, the 7th District, was represented by Democrats continuously from 1969 onward. AOC has yet to be tested in purple or red districts.
Sunkara points to the enormous crowds she and Bernie drew during their Fighting Oligarchy tour in conservative areas:
More than 12,500 people turned out for a rally in Nampa, Idaho, a bigger crowd than the number of registered Democrats in the entire county. Twenty thousand came out in deep-red Utah.
The Fighting Oligarchy tour certainly shows that the Sanders-AOC partnership has extraordinary appeal. It does not yet prove that AOC, by herself, can draw comparable crowds in red America.
And let’s put those numbers in perspective. In Idaho’s Canyon County, in which Nampa is located, there are roughly 68,000 registered Republicans, 32,000 unaffiliated voters, and only 12,000 registered Democrats. In Utah, more than 1 million voters (49%) are registered Republicans, while only about 14%, 250,000 or so, are Democrats. Those rallies suggest AOC could do well in Democratic primaries in red states, but they provide little support for the idea that AOC can break through the Republican advantage in deeply conservative areas.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say AOC wins the Democratic nomination in 2028. How might she fare against a Republican such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, or Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)?
Foreign policy experience is likely to be a major issue. AOC, to date, has no diplomatic, military, intelligence, or executive national security experience. Nor has she served on the House Armed Services Committee, where much of Congress’ work on national security takes place. Think what you will about Vance and Rubio, they have been immersed in foreign policy in the second Trump term. Convincing skeptical voters that she is prepared to lead the country through major international crises will be a significant challenge because of her lack of experience.
On the electoral front, AOC needs to prove to voters like me that she can appeal to the working class. Can she attract a broader base than the one she has needed to win reelection in her home district? One way to do that would be to challenge and beat Chuck Schumer for New York’s Senate seat and then defeat the Republican nominee in the general election. There’s a good chance she could win both races, and if she did we would have a much clearer picture of whether she can sell a progressive program to working-class New Yorkers who do not live in overwhelmingly Democratic districts.
That experience and the success that followed would make her a much stronger candidate for higher office. And what is the rush? Ocasio-Cortez is only 36 years old. It is not asking too much for her to gain more experience and learn how to translate her ideological commitments into the kind of class-centered politics that Bernie Sanders mastered. She will undoubtedly continue to inspire the DSA faithful, a younger and well-educated cohort, but until I see her build genuine enthusiasm among blue-collar and service workers, I’m choosing to remain skeptical.
As I’ve written before, progressive dreams cannot become reality without extensive working-class support. Let’s see her do the hard work of winning its allegiance.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Is the US Ready for Radical Change?
Political scientist, political economist, author, and journalist C. J. Polychroniou believes that radical change is difficult but still possible in today's United States, even though he realizes there is a strong anti-democratic tradition standing in the way.
Jul 28, 2026
The US is the richest country in the world, yet an international outlier on many measures. Among industrialized nations, the US spends a lower percentage of its GDP on public social expenditure, has no universal healthcare system, union density is at an all-time low, and the average American's standard of living is in decline, as "nearly half of US households can't make ends meet." Of course, delusional President Donald Trump continues to say that the US is the "hottest country in the world." Is the US, however, ready for radical change? After all, isn't there evidence that Americans are losing faith in capitalism and that socialism is gaining ground among voters?
Political scientist, political economist, author, and journalist C. J. Polychroniou shares provocative thoughts on these issues in an interview with the French-Greek writer and journalist Alexandra Boutri. Polychroniou believes that radical change is difficult but still possible in today's United States, even though he realizes there is a strong anti-democratic tradition standing in the way and regards the Democratic Party itself as the graveyard of radical change undertakings.
Alexandra Boutri: Recent polls indicate that capitalism is in trouble in the US, as there is a growing loss of faith in the system, apparently even among Republicans, while socialism is gaining mainstream appeal. So, I want to start this interview by inquiring about your own impression regarding political and ideological trends in the United States. Indeed, is the country on the verge of radical change?
C. J. Polychroniou: I am now old enough to take any talk of radical political change with a grain of salt. That being said, there is no doubt that the US version of capitalism has been an utter failure for the majority of Americans. In contrast to European or Asian versions of capitalism, capitalism in the US has always been structured around what we might call the Sopranos version of doing business, which is the Trump administration’s way of actually running the whole country today. But Trump aside, what kind of civilized society denies its citizens access to universal healthcare, tuition-free higher education, guaranteed long-term parental leave, 4-6 weeks of guaranteed paid vacation, and robust unemployment benefits? The US does!
Only the pathetic leadership of the Democratic Party stands in the way of Trump’s inevitable fall and disgrace.
The younger generations in the US seem to have awakened to the realization that the US economic system is brutal and thus detrimental to their well-being, even if they may not have an alternative socioeconomic system in mind that they would like to see instituted. They have indeed taken notice of the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation in the world without a universal healthcare system and that the standard of living has declined to the level of developing countries. Truth be told, even if North America remains the wealthiest on average, the quality of life in many European countries, which are, of course, still fully capitalistic, is superior to the US. There are stronger social safety nets and greater work-life balance in capitalist Europe than there are in the capitalist United States of America.
Which countries are best on women’s well-being? According to the latest Women, Peace and Security Index, European countries occupy all nine of the top positions while the US ranks 31st, below countries like Serbia and Malta. So, we do need to take into account different versions of capitalism. In that context, it is safe to say that many Americans have finally awakened to the realization that the US version of capitalism sucks! Anything more than that, however, is open to speculation. Socialism is gaining ground, but the challenges of building a unified socialist movement on a national scale and having a socialist political party that can contest power at the federal level are enormous in the United States of America.
Alexandra Boutri: Is the rise of socialism in the US the reason why Trump is reviving the boogeyman of communism?
C. J. Polychroniou: Absolutely. However much of a shallow man Trump happens to be, he is nonetheless a mastermind politician who has the pulse of today’s Republican voters. He is the greatest bullshitter of the modern age, but that’s only because of his audience. He knows how to stir fear. He also knows that he can normalize cruelty because his fanatical and racist fanbase simply loves it. Have his policies worsened economic conditions in the country to the point that even some of his own followers are beginning to doubt him? He only has to raise the volume on culture wars and then becomes again, in the eyes of his own supporters, the nation’s savior. Of course, such tactics have an expiration date even for the most popular authoritarian leaders. Look, for example, at what happened to Viktor Orbán in Hungary. After 16 years in power, even his own core supporters grew tired of his cronyism and corruption. I believe we will see something similar happen to Donald Trump and to the Republican Party, perhaps as soon as this coming November, in spite of how deeply the anti-democratic tradition has entrenched itself in all branches of government. In the end, only the pathetic leadership of the Democratic Party stands in the way of Trump’s inevitable fall and disgrace.
Alexandra Boutri: Are you also saying that the Democrats have been responsible for Trump’s rise to power?
C J. Polychroniou: Of course, and it was the Democrats, with their ability to destroy trust in government by siding themselves utterly and shamelessly with major corporate and financial interests, that rolled out the red carpet for Trump’s arrival on the nation’s political scene. The country had been moving further and further to the right since the early 1980s. In fact, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as moderates had been declining since the Clinton years. Democrats still talk about Bill Clinton’s achievements, such as turning deficits into surpluses and making the economy more globalized, but his policies ushered in a new era of inequality while he transformed the welfare state by ending social policy. Essentially, the welfare state was dismantled under the Clinton presidency and was largely replaced in turn by volunteerism.
Neoliberalism (embraced by both parties in the US) and cultural relativism (a late obsession of liberals and segments of the left) have been at the core of the political turn to the far right in the US. The main point, though, is that the Democrats failed to advance a meaningful alternative whenever they found themselves in power. The Obama administration also had the chance to make a meaningful impact on the future of the country but opted, instead, to align itself with the status quo on all major issues, both on the domestic and foreign front. The Biden administration did make some progress on economic policy, mainly thanks to pressures from the progressive wing of the party, but failed miserably on foreign policy. As to why Kamala Harris lost to Trump, that's an issue that will forever be debated.
Alexandra Boutri: In a recent campaign speech in Michigan, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that the Trump administration is “hellbent on tearing down in four years what it took this country 250 years to build.” What did she mean by that, and how likely is it that she will be the Democratic 2028 nominee?
C. J. Polychroniou: Naturally, the country has made progress over the past 250 years. Don’t you think it would have been unnatural if it hadn’t done so? But how do we measure progress? Wars existed in the past, and it appears that war will never end. By the same token, we have taken major steps toward protecting individuals against discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, but economic inequality is greater today than it has ever been in the modern era, while women, people of color, and minorities continue to face economic disadvantages. In any case, it is beyond dispute that Trump is destroying whatever social and economic progress has been made so far. He is a wrecking ball, an unhinged sociopath, but one who is still being treated as America's savior by something like close to 40% of voters. That’s simply mind-boggling, but it says something noteworthy about the persistence of a particular component of American political culture—one that rests on possessive individualism, anti-intellectualism, and the paranoid style. Richard Hofstadter addressed some of those aspects of American political life long before the rise of Trumpism. But we need to add racism, as it also remains a profound component of American political culture.
If popular struggles succeeded in introducing a universal healthcare system in the US, well, that would definitely constitute radical change in terms of how the nation has decided to deal with the well-being of its citizens.
I don’t know if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will decide to run for president in 2028. I hope she does. Recent polls indicate that she is more popular with Democratic voters than the likes of Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, and Kamala Harris, none of whom offers hope for a brighter future, although any one of them would be an improvement over Trump. What I do know, though, is that if AOC does decide to run for president in 2028, not only will she have at least half of the country react with extreme fear and paranoia attacks, but she will encounter massive opposition from the Democratic establishment itself. In 2016, the Democratic National Committee derided the Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) campaign. I expect something similar will happen to AOC. The current leadership of the Democratic Party is the graveyard of radical change in the US.
Alexandra Boutri: What would constitute radical change in today’s United States?
C. J. Polychroniou: That’s a very important question, and I’m glad you raised it. Political, economic, and even sociocultural settings must be taken into account whenever we speak of demands for radical change. Take something like universal healthcare. Almost every country in Europe has universal coverage, and it can also be found in many countries around the world. But in the US there has always been staunch opposition to universal healthcare policies by powerful private entities like the health and insurance industries. If popular struggles succeeded in introducing a universal healthcare system in the US, well, that would definitely constitute radical change in terms of how the nation has decided to deal with the well-being of its citizens. No question about it. Radical change should not imply the transformation of a country’s entire system of government. That would constitute a revolution. Even then, we would need to distinguish between a political revolution and a social revolution. For instance, the American Revolution was a political, not social revolution. It did not alter the fabric of society; it did not change wealth distribution and left the class system intact. On the other hand, the French Revolution that began in 1789 and the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia were truly social revolutions in that they transformed property relations and changed radically the class systems in both countries.
Alexandra Boutri: Today’s left focuses too much on cultural issues without really challenging capitalism. Indeed, in the recent past, issues like multiculturalism and even certain variants of feminism have functioned like ideologies of capitalism. In addition, some segments of the left have a knack for spreading ideas that are either not well thought out or simply impractical. For instance, and I believe this also captures your own sentiments, I find talk about “degrowth” and “wealth tax” schemes that fail to address the dynamics of unfettered capital accumulation while making in addition ludicrous claims that their implementation would solve the climate crisis as rather wishy-washy responses to capitalist crises and thus by no means game-changing strategies. My question then is this: What sort of new ideas would qualify, in your view, as game changers for the contemporary capitalist environment in the United States?
C. J. Polychroniou: I have already mentioned universal healthcare. In any case, it would be rather easy for anyone, I think, to simply suggest ideas to improve the state of the US economy and to create a better society but that would be meaningless if the ideas themselves weren't accompanied by concrete steps and specific policy proposals on how to erect alternative socioeconomic arrangements. But we need expertise for that to happen. That being said, a new project has been launched by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst called Game Changers: Economic Policies for a Working America. It’s a project that was conceived of and is being directed by Gerald Epstein, a world-leading progressive economist who also happens to be PERI’s co-director. The issues addressed range from health and the environment to trade and finance. The policy briefs produced by different economists contain the sort of policy proposals that are desperately needed for rewriting the rules of the US economy in a manner that caters first and foremost to the needs and interests of American workers. I recommend everyone interested in progressive ideas on how to create a fairer, greener, and sustainable US economy to study some of the policy briefs that have been posted on PERI's website.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'They're Trying to Scare People': AOC Dismisses Latest GOP Warnings of 'Communism'
"We can’t even raise the minimum wage. Do Republicans really think this stuff is going to happen?"
Jul 23, 2026
Republican fearmongering that communism is on its way to the United States is a perennial feature of US political discourse—despite the fact that their warnings proved wrong in the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt passed Social Security and other New Deal programs and recently when Mayor Zohran Mamdani neglected to usher in a communist era in New York City, even as he moved forward with plans for universal childcare and a network of city-run grocery stores.
On Thursday, progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) mocked the GOP's latest claims that Democratic politicians who support Medicare for All and other broadly popular universal proposals are putting the US on what House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) recently called a "dark road of death to communism."
"We can’t even raise the minimum wage. Do Republicans really think this stuff is going to happen?" Ocasio-Cortez told a reporter on Capitol Hill after they'd asked whether the recent victories of democratic socialists and other progressives could end up "as full-blown communism."
Reporter: Isn’t there concern that this slippery slope to socialism inevitably ends up as full-blown communism?
AOC: I mean, no. I think that’s very silly. We can’t even raise the minimum wage. Do they really think communism is going to happen? No. They’re trying to scare people… pic.twitter.com/RiFhqpwd6T
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 23, 2026
With 78% of Democratic voters supporting an expansion of the Medicare program to everyone in the US—which would end healthcare's treatment as a for-profit endeavor in the US and put the medical system on equal footing with those in other wealthy countries—a number of Democratic House candidates who support the proposal have won primary races in recent months, including Melat Kiros in Colorado, Claire Valdez in New York, and Adam Hamawy in New Jersey. In Michigan, US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a Medicare for All advocate, has polled ahead of his centrist opponent Rep. Haley Stevens in numerous recent surveys.
As Republicans aim to maintain control of the Senate and House in the midterm elections—having ripped nutrition assistance and Medicaid away from millions of Americans, driven up healthcare costs for people who have insurance through the Affordable Care Act, supported the invasion of Iran as it has sent gas prices soaring, backed billions of dollars in Pentagon spending and military aid for Israel as Americans struggle to afford essentials, and supported a president who says he doesn't "think about Americans’ financial situation"—they've attempted to revive old claims that the new crop of progressive Democrats "are a danger to you and your family," as Johnson said this week.
The House speaker called the progressive primary winners "crazy little mini-Mamdanis who are popping up all around the country," while House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) warned that "the radical left feels they need to hide what their policies are... Let’s call it what it is: It’s communism.”
Ocasio-Cortez, who is said to be a potential 2028 presidential or Senate candidate, called the warnings "very silly" and suggested they came from lawmakers who are dead-set against healthcare being treated as a right in the US instead of a profit-making business.
"They’re trying to scare people because they don’t want us talking about the fact that we all have a right to healthcare," said the congresswoman. "So they want to call everything they don’t like communist because if people actually wake up to the fact that their elected officials are screwing them over when they get here, then they’re going to realize they deserve better and that healthcare as a right isn’t crazy, it isn't pie-in-the-sky."
"They want to call this stuff communist because they don’t want us to realize that the rest of the developed world has guaranteed healthcare," she added. "So they want to call it communist because they don’t want you to know that Germany, Italy, the UK, Canada—everybody else—has it better than us, and we spend the most money for the worst care in the modern, developed world."
In another interview Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez expanded on her condemnation of Republicans' healthcare policies.
"This administration is killing Americans," she said. "They are killing people by taking away their healthcare. They are killing women by having them bleed out in parking lots. They are killing seniors by imposing cuts to Medicaid and to Medicare recipients... The fact of the matter is they are for UnitedHealth. They are for Big Pharma. They are for these corporations, and they are cutting your healthcare."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of NDAA Vote, AOC Warns Amendment to Integrate US and Israeli Military Is 'Existential Threat'
"Every member of Congress must vote NO," said the congresswoman.
Jul 22, 2026
With a US House committee refusing to include a bipartisan amendment to strike the integration of parts of the Israeli and American militaries from the National Defense Authorization Act for the coming year, the chamber on Wednesday was set to vote on a bill that progressive opponents including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said would threaten US "sovereignty."
Section 219 of the 2027 NDAA, said the New York Democrat, "is an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy."
"Every member of Congress must vote NO," she added.
Section 219, which originated as a bipartisan proposal pushed by Democratic Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, directs the secretary of defense to designate an "executive agent" at the Pentagon who would oversee a new United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.
The program, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to as "my plan" in June, would integrate American and Israeli research and development by pushing for US military systems' use of Israeli-manufactured technology. The initiative would "shift the framework for US-Israeli defense cooperation from aid to partnership," said Netanyahu.
As Military.com reported, Section 219 would integrate US and Israeli counter-drone, missile, and air defense, artificial intelligence, and cyber and electronic warfare systems.
At Responsible Statecraft in May, Ben Freeman wrote the fusion of the American and Israeli defense sectors would "bring extraordinary Israeli influence to the US beyond what it already has" by giving the Israeli government "the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in US politics: jobs in the US."
"By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on US soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs lie," wrote Freeman. "The result could well be a US political system even more susceptible to the whims of an Israeli government that seemingly has no qualms about drawing the US into military conflicts in the Middle East."
The NDAA is set to be voted on in the House on Wednesday, as numerous recent polls have shown public approval of US military aid to Israel plummeting as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) continues its assault on Gaza that began in October 2023, as well as ramping up attacks in the West Bank and pushing for the US to join in attacks on Iran.
Nearly half of Democratic members of the House voted to cut off military aid to Israel last week in what was called a "seismic shift," with lawmakers apparently responding to voters' clear condemnation of US support for the IDF. Last August, three-quarters of Democratic voters said in a Quinnipiac poll that they opposed continuing to arm Israel.
Progressive political candidates such as Michigan's US Senate contender Abdul El-Sayed in recent months have framed the issue as one in which voters are demanding more government investment in US schools and healthcare, rather than in Israel's military.
"While Americans are focused on other things, like how to make ends meet in the face of a rapidly rising cost of living, the House will vote to merge our military technology and supply chains with Israel’s,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said in a statement Tuesday after the amendment he put forward with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to strike Section 219 was denied a floor vote by the House Rules Committee. “Our founders would be appalled at what Congress is doing now.”
Other lawmakers who joined Massie and Khanna's effort to eliminate the provision include Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii), Derek Tran (D-Calif.), and Joe Courtney (D-Conn.).
The House is allowing consideration of two amendments that Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) submitted, including one that would remove the word "integration" from Section 219. Josh Paul, a former Biden administration State Department official who resigned over unconditional US military aid to Israel after the IDF began bombarding Gaza in October 2023, emphasized that Luna's amendment does not eliminate the proposed program.
The amendment "has no meaningful impact on the bill," said Paul, co-founder of the lobby group A New Policy. "The goal here is to try to make it a tough vote for people, for members of Congress who don't want to see US and Israel integration, but they should rest easy because that's not what this amendment does."
BREAKING: This Amendment is a set-up. Hear from Josh Paul why A New Policy OPPOSES Representative Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-FL-13) amendment to the House NDAA. The amendment would strike the word “integration” from several places in Section 219. Don’t be fooled, the amendment DOES… pic.twitter.com/gcYKd4Pyj2
— A New Policy (@anewpolicyorg) July 21, 2026
Massie and Khanna said they would attempt to eliminate Section 219 from the bill in the House and Senate conference after the House vote. The Senate's defense authorization package includes a similar provision called Section 1217.
"It's shocking that this even has to be explained," said Khanna on Tuesday. "It's about American sovereignty... We do not even have a chance to vote in the House to stop Israel and the United States from co-producing weapons. We need to now fight to strip this amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Bill Is a Trojan Horse': GOP Pushes Voter Suppression Under Cover of Insider Trading Ban
"Republicans are trying to pull a trick this week," said US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Jul 21, 2026
Democrats on Capitol Hill and voting rights advocates on Tuesday sounded the alarm about Republicans in the House of Representatives trying to push through voter suppression legislation under cover of passing a ban on congressional stock trading.
According to a Tuesday report from Roll Call, House GOP leaders recently added "unrelated language" to what was a bipartisan bill banning congressional stock trading that would "require voters to produce photo ID at the polls, a signature issue for President Donald Trump."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) hammered Republicans for what she said were underhanded tactics that are undermining what had been a serious bipartisan effort to halt congressional stock trading.
"Republicans are trying to pull a trick this week," Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a social media post. "They say we are voting on an 'insider trading' bill, but have snuck in massive SAVE Act-style voter suppression measures to it. This is a GOP effort to sabotage national mail-in voting, disguised as a trading ban. I’m voting NO."
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said that the caucus was opposing the GOP's legislation not just for its attacks on voting rights, but because it only forces congresspeople to stop making new stock trades, while not requiring them to divest of their current holdings.
"House Republicans are not serious about enacting a meaningful congressional stock trading ban," said Clarke. "The combined Stop Insider Trading Act and Voter ID Act... would allow members of Congress to continue owning, selling, and, in some cases, purchasing individual stocks while simultaneously imposing stricter voter ID requirements that would make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to vote."
"This bill is a Trojan horse," Clarke added, "using the premise of congressional ethics reform to advance a broader effort to restrict access to the ballot box."
The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) on Monday sent lawmakers a letter opposing the GOP-backed legislation, which it said would "impose onerous new requirements on voting."
Among other things, the group said the proposed legislation would "demand Americans provide ID to cast a ballot but only accept an unreasonably narrow list of acceptable types of documentation," excluding the kind of "widely held and reliable forms of ID that young people and voters of color disproportionally rely on."
The CLC also said the bill doesn't provide "sufficient safeguards" for voters wrongly deemed ineligible to prove they are legally allowed to participate in US elections.
A page on congressional contact portal 5 Calls recommended users oppose the GOP-backed bill, which it described as "partisan legislation" that "uses the guise of much-needed ethics reform to sneak through an unpopular and unrelated attack on voting rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rallying in Michigan, Sanders Says Primary Race Is Between Abdul El-Sayed 'and the Billionaire Class'
"When the stakes are so high," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, "is the answer to our problems to turn to the same playbook over and over again?"
Jul 19, 2026
Ahead of early voting in Michigan's Democratic US Senate primary, candidate and Medicare for All advocate Abdul El-Sayed was joined in Detroit Saturday evening by progressive leaders, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, for a rally titled: "The People vs. The Powerful."
The senator declared to 1,600 attendees that the choice in the primary is not simply between El-Sayed and his opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens.
"In all due respect to Congresswoman Stevens, everyone knows that this is not an election between her and Abdul El-Sayed," said the Vermont Independent senator. "This is an election between Abdul and the billionaire class."
Sanders: In all due respect to Congresswoman Stevens, everyone knows that this is not an election between her and Abdul El-Sayed. This is an election between Abdul and the billionaire class. That is what this election is about.
A billionaire class which has already—and there are… pic.twitter.com/BPZ9NSar4d
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 18, 2026
The final weeks of the primary, in which Michigan voters will go to the polls on August 4, have been marked by reports of massive outside spending in favor of Stevens and against El-Sayed, who has made the refrain, "Money out of politics, money in your pocket, and Medicare for All" the central message of his campaign.
As Common Dreams reported last week, El-Sayed led the way in fundraising in the second quarter of 2026, bringing in $4.6 million while Stevens raised $2.2 million.
But Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign finance filings showed that outside spending by people and groups supporting Stevens has soared to an estimated $50 million, according to an analysis by Punchbowl News.
"More than half of the total ($28.4 million) is coming from United Democracy Project (UDP)," said congressional reporter Ally Mutnick, referring to the super political action committee (PAC) affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has also backed the vehemently pro-Israel Stevens in the past.
UDP acknowledged last week that it had spent nearly $15 million on the Michigan Senate primary race so far, including $9.3 million in support of Stevens and $5.7 million against El-Sayed.
El-Sayed is a strong supporter of Palestinian rights and—like a growing majority of Democratic voters after more than two years of Israel's assault on Gaza—has called for the US to end military aid to Israel.
In recent weeks he has responded to reporters' frequent questions on his views about whether Israel has a "right to exist," by asking whether Palestine has a right to exist and, in a Sunday interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, saying that a more pertinent question for American voters is whether Israel has "a right to our tax dollars."
Does Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed think there’s room in the Democratic Party for both supporters and opponents of Israel?
EL-SAYED: “There's always room in the tent for folks. And I'm for human rights. I'm for equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination.… pic.twitter.com/Amfvsnmx6J
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) July 19, 2026
At the rally on Saturday night, Sanders said that AIPAC's focus on funding Stevens' campaign "has everything to do with the fact that they understand that Abdul and I, and the vast majority of the American people, want a foreign policy that is based on morality and decency."
"This is an election that will show the nation whether AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super PACs can spend tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars to buy a US Senate seat, or whether, within a corrupt campaign finance system, the voices of ordinary Americans—the people of Michigan—can prevail," said Sanders. "That is what this campaign is all about. It is about democracy versus oligarchy, and we are on the side of democracy."
Sanders: Why is the whole country looking at this election? In fact, people all over the world are watching what’s going on here in Michigan.
And the answer is that this is an election that will show the nation whether AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super PACs can spend tens… pic.twitter.com/ALMk10YzJu
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 18, 2026
Ocasio-Cortez noted that the contest between El-Sayed and Stevens comes as Americans are struggling to afford groceries, gas, and other essentials while President Donald Trump continues his war against Iran, dismisses working families' financial struggles, and insists the federal government cannot afford to provide universal public services.
"When the stakes are so high, when more people than ever are living so close to the bone, eventually we have to ask ourselves: Is the answer to our problems to turn to the same playbook over and over again?" said Ocasio-Cortez. "A playbook that says, in order to win, Democrats must rely on the same dark money—$50 million and counting—from the same people who backed 35 election deniers to Congress who voted to overturn the 2020 election?"
"I believe Michiganders—Democrats, Republicans, and independents—believe that good leadership swings for the fences," said the congresswoman, who has been named as a potential presidential or US Senate candidate in 2028. "Good leadership gets big money out of our system. It takes on the corruption that blocks commonsense solutions that lift working people. And, by the way, it helps not to take their money in the first place."
AOC: When the stakes are so high, when more people than ever are living so close to the bone, eventually we have to ask ourselves:
Is the answer to our problems to turn to the same playbook over and over again? A playbook that says, in order to win, Democrats must rely on the… pic.twitter.com/oqIaQzSQfH
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 18, 2026
"We can choose to reward the $50 million in dark money by voting their way—which, by the way Michigan—do you think that $50 million is for free?" continued Ocasio-Cortez. "Do you think it’s an act of charity? We know how this works. There’s $50 million in this race because they’re expecting a return. It’s an investment... So we can choose that or we can choose Dr. Abdul El-Sayed for the United States Senate."
On Sunday, as El-Sayed and his high-profile supporters in Congress prepared to rally more voters in Grand Rapids and Lansing, CNN reported that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) had confronted Sanders in a phone call, complaining about his "meddling" in primary elections.
"The candidates we are supporting are candidates who are representing working people, and I think it's a long time overdue for the Democratic Party to stop worrying about their wealthy campaign funders and start worrying about the needs of working people," Sanders told CNN.
CNN correspondent Seung Min Kim suggested that Stevens is seen by Democratic leaders as a safer bet to win the general election in Michigan in a crucial election year. But recent polls have shown her views on Israel and her support from AIPAC, as well as her donations from the for-profit health insurance industry and her opposition to Medicare for All, could harm, not help, Stevens.
Along with big spending from the pro-Israel lobby, the primary race has been characterized in recent weeks by El-Sayed's call for social media users to refrain from mocking and making personal attacks against Stevens and to focus instead on the issues at the center of the campaign, as well as recent Islamophobic vitriol against El-Sayed, including from Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.).
Fetterman told Fox News Saturday that El-Sayed is "essentially, a pro-Hamas candidate that's been anti-American and deeply anti-Israel," adding that "44% of Muslims, you know, they have positive views of Hamas."
Journalist Prem Thakker of Zeteo News called on Stevens to "condemn this racist and Islamophobic rhetoric coming from your allies," as El-Sayed had earlier called for civility from his own supporters.
El-Sayed pointed to the recent attacks at the rally, saying his opponents "have taken to calling me 'dangerous.'"
"If you're a worker who wants our economy to work for you, I'm not dangerous," said El-Sayed. "If you're someone sitting in medical debt, wondering what your financial future is because you deigned to see a doctor in the richest, most powerful country in the world, if you're that person, I'm not dangerous."
El-Sayed: They’ve taken to calling me dangerous.
If you’re a worker who wants our economy to work for you, I’m not dangerous.
If you’re AIPAC and want to send our money abroad, you damn well better believe I’m dangerous.
If you’re Chuck Schumer and want to keep doling out… pic.twitter.com/S7HhzThsST
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 18, 2026
"But if you're Blue Cross Blue Shield shareholders, yep, I'm dangerous!" he added. "If you’re AIPAC and want to send our money abroad, you damn well better believe I’m dangerous. If you’re Chuck Schumer and want to keep doling out corporate money to elect people who are going to do your bidding, I am so damn dangerous!"
"If you're somebody who wants government to work for you," El-Sayed said, "I aim to be the best friend you ever had."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Pro-Palestine Movement Is Rewriting the Rules of US Politics
Recent election cycles represented the first time in modern American history where Palestine factored as a major, decisive variable in how citizens cast their ballots.
Jul 10, 2026
A major showdown on the House floor seemed imminent. An amendment, advanced by the Rules Committee, was poised to force a rare and telling record vote on stripping Israel of $3.3 billion in annual US military aid.
Brought forward by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and drawing support from key progressive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and Greg Casar (Texas), the measure was set to put every lawmaker's stance on unconditional foreign assistance under a public microscope.
However, the high-stakes vote never actually happened. On June 30, the entire legislative package collapsed under the weight of Washington's internal political warfare. In a dramatic procedural twist, a coalition of Democrats and disgruntled conservative Republicans voted down the mandatory "rule" required to even begin debating the underlying State Department spending bill.
But even if the vote on Massie's amendment had occurred, the result would have been entirely predictable. It would have been defeated, as support for Israel on both sides of the congressional aisle remains structurally entrenched—even as the American public shifts against Israeli policy in historic numbers.
The strategic focus must remain on reaching out to the public, who hold the true power to influence—and even coerce—politicians into making the right choices.
According to a watershed Gallup poll published on February 27, a plurality of Americans now sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, leading by a margin of 41% to 36%. This marked the first time since Gallup began tracking the metric over two decades ago that Israel did not hold the upper hand in public sympathy.
Yet the shift is part of a broader, undeniable trend. A nationwide survey published in late June 2026 by Quinnipiac University revealed that an unprecedented 48% of American voters now think the United States is “too supportive” of Israel—the highest percentage recorded since the pollster first began tracking the question in 2017.
This is precisely why Massie's amendment carries such profound weight. It is significant not because US politicians have suddenly developed a collective moral conscience, but because recent election cycles represented the first time in modern American history where Palestine factored as a major, decisive variable in how citizens cast their ballots.
For years, conventional political analysts dismissed pro-Palestinian mobilization, claiming Americans only vote based on immediate socioeconomic interests and rigid party loyalties. That assessment has since proven faulty.
The political cost of Washington's complicity became undeniable following the fallout of the 2024 presidential race, a reality later confirmed by those within the inner sanctums of power. In the post-election debates, senior administration insiders admitted that the handling of the Gaza genocide alienated core voter blocks.
The political cost of Washington's complicity became undeniable after the 2024 presidential race. According to Axios, top Democratic strategists conducting the party's post-election audit explicitly admitted to advocacy groups that internal party data proved the administration's Gaza policy was a "net-negative" on the ballot.
This finding—disclosed during internal briefings by Democratic National Committee autopsy author Paul Rivera—confirmed that the party's unconditional backing of Israel directly fractured its base, and ultimately contributed to its loss of the elections.
The upcoming November elections are expected to be fiercely contested, and Gaza will, once more, be on the ballot. Following a series of progressive, anti-war victories in local primaries, The Guardian reported that US foreign policy toward the conflict has effectively "turned into something of a litmus test for the left."
This historic transformation in the popular American perception of Palestine and Israel does not indicate that a political rupture is soon to follow, as US politicians are notorious for their moral flexibility and their ability to spin language in whatever way is necessary to remain in power.
Indeed, the evolution of the language used by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez regarding the word "genocide" in Gaza tells the entire story of how the Democratic establishment is never compelled by genuine moral urgency, but rather by sheer political expediency.
In the early months of the genocide, Ocasio-Cortez hesitated to adopt the term, acutely aware of the deep sensitivities surrounding such language in US media and mainstream society.
"The fact that this word is even in our discourse... demonstrates the mass inhumanity that Gaza is facing," she stated, attempting to navigate an acceptable rhetorical middle ground in January 2024 during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Yet, under the relentless weight of pressure from an increasingly mobilized progressive constituency, she systematically upgraded her language in March of the same year, declaring on the House floor: "If you want to know what an unfolding genocide looks like, open your eyes. It looks like the forced famine of 1.1 million innocents."
This linguistic shift continued to intensify until it reached the Munich Security Conference last February, where Ocasio-Cortez finally deployed the term without any qualification. Unconditional US aid, she flatly argued, "enabled a genocide in Gaza."
Ocasio-Cortez is just one of many Democratic progressives who carefully filtered their vocabulary to avoid the political fallout of using the term genocide too early, or too late. Her position was eventually corrected not because of a sudden moral awakening or the discovery of new information regarding the "unfolding genocide," but because the margins of error allowed by a newly conscious American public have completely closed.
Therefore, the strategic focus must remain on reaching out to the public, who hold the true power to influence—and even coerce—politicians into making the right choices.
Ultimately, the current movement serves as a crucial barometer, proving that sustained, grassroots, anti-war pressure is successfully destabilizing Israel's traditionally unquestioned shield in Washington.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Who Is Funding the Democrats Who Say 'We're Capitalists, Not Socialists'? Probably These Billionaire Capitalists
An investigation found that the anti-socialist group Promise to America has ties to a PAC funded by billionaires such as LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman.
Jul 02, 2026
More than a dozen corporate Democrats last week responded to upstart progressive wins in primaries by pledging their support to a political manifesto called "Promise to America," which emphasizes support for capitalism, law enforcement, and "fiscal discipline."
A Thursday report published by Sludge about the Promise to America found that it "is closely tied to the Welcome Party, a group whose PAC has received more than half of its individual contributions from billionaires."
According to Sludge, the Promise to America appeared in public for the first time last month at Welcome Party's annual WelcomeFest conference, where it was signed by Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and Adam Gray (D-Calif.).
Other prominent Democrats who have signed the pledge include Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Vincente Gonzalez (D-Texas), and Don Davis (D-NC).
Although Sludge uncovered no evidence that Welcome Party is financially supporting the Promise to America, the manifesto's presence at the group's conference was notable given that billionaire donations account for more than 60% of the $10.8 million in donations that it has received over the last five years.
Major donors to the PAC include LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, who has donated a total of $1.8 million, and former 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch, who with his wife Kathryn has donated $2.5 million.
Other notable billionaires who have contributed to WelcomePAC include Bain Capital co-founder Joshua Bekenstein, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and several members of the Walton family.
Sludge's investigation also found that "more billionaires may have donated to the Welcome Party’s two 'dark money' nonprofit arms, which do not disclose their donors publicly."
The Promise to America manifesto has drawn heavy criticism from progressives.
In a recent interview with political commentator Santita Jackson, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that the corporate Democrats' pledge was a reactive document that lacked policy solutions to the problems facing Americans.
"Okay fine, if you’re against [democratic socialists], that’s okay. But what do you believe?" said Ocasio-Cortez. "And that I think is the core of the weaknesses from that wing at this moment. There’s no affirmative vision really coming from most places in the Democratic Party with the exception of democratic socialism."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) last week also challenged the corporate wing of the party in a speech on the floor of the US House of Representatives in which he defended the vision being laid out by progressive insurgents.
“The progressive movement is winning across the country, from the heart of New York to Michigan to Maine,” Khanna said. “The people are saying no to foreign wars and they’re saying no to genocide in Gaza. They’re saying no to the unfair and lopsided economy that has allowed a few people to hoard extreme wealth and power, and they’re saying yes to Medicare for All.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
In First 2026 Senate Endorsement, AOC Backs El-Sayed in Crucial Michigan Race
"Together, we’re proving that even in the face of unprecedented outside spending, a movement powered by the people can win," El-Sayed said.
Jul 02, 2026
As the progressive movement builds its momentum in Democratic primaries, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued her first endorsement in a competitive Senate primary on Thursday, throwing her support behind Dr. Abdul El-Sayed as he battles for the party's Senate nomination in Michigan.
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a likely 2028 presidential candidate and one of the most popular figures among the Democratic base, is perhaps the biggest player yet to back El-Sayed, the former public health director for Detroit, who polls currently show leading the more establishment-friendly Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8).
The primary, which will take place on August 4, will determine who faces Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in a race that could decide whether Democrats flip the Senate in November.
AOC's support for El-Sayed—who has championed Medicare for All, an arms embargo against Israel, raising taxes on the wealthy, and overturning Citizens United—puts her at odds with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has backed Stevens, and with other progressive Democrats like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) who prefer McMorrow.
However, El-Sayed has his own share of high-profile supporters, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), as well as a host of progressive House members, including Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
“Despite our ideological differences and whatever disagreements there are in the party, every single one of us sees this moment as existential,” Ocasio-Cortez told The New York Times. “And I think many people are willing to put aside differences in order to give us the best chance at winning. And I think that Abdul gives us that right now.”
Though he appears to be in the driver’s seat with just over a month before the August 4 Michigan primary, El-Sayed still faces a perilous path to the nomination that AOC’s endorsement may help him to weather.
While El-Sayed has sworn off big money donors, Stevens—the candidate closest behind him—is armed with more than $16 million in super PAC spending, including millions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) political spending arm, the United Democracy Project, which has begun to blanket the airwaves with ads boosting Stevens, who also has the backing of nearly 100 other corporate PACs representing the health insurance industry, Wall Street banks, fossil fuels, and Big Tech, among others.
The alliance between AOC and El-Sayed is nearly a decade in the making. Fresh off the stunning primary upset that led her to Congress in 2018, she endorsed the doctor's then-longshot bid to become governor of Michigan.
Sharing a photo of the two at a campaign event eight years prior, El-Sayed celebrated AOC as someone who "has spent her career taking on the powerful on behalf of everyday people, and she has shown all of us what courageous, smart, values-driven leadership looks like."
He added that she "has changed the trajectory of American politics and inspired a generation to believe that government really can work for working people."
"Together, we’re proving that even in the face of unprecedented outside spending, a movement powered by the people can win," El Sayed said.
Indeed, that movement has been winning of late.
AOC's endorsement of El-Sayed comes after three House candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani—including multiple self-identified democratic socialists—cruised to victory over establishment Democrats in their primaries last week.
This week showed that the left-wing insurgency was underway nationwide, with 29-year-old democratic socialist Melat Kiros stunning longtime Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado's primary.
Pollster Adam Carlson said that El-Sayed's race in Michigan will go a long way towards demonstrating the extent to which AOC and her movement truly have reshaped the political landscape.
“If El-Sayed wins the primary and the general election in the swingiest of swing states, ahead of 2028,” he said, “it would give the progressive wing of the party a proof of concept that the conventional wisdom of 'more moderate equals more electable' has some serious holes in it, at least in the second Trump era.”
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