logo
DNC infighting threatens to throw party into ‘chaos'

DNC infighting threatens to throw party into ‘chaos'

The Hill17-05-2025
Infighting at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is threatening to consume Democratic leadership just as the midterms are starting to kick into gear.
The tensions come after a DNC panel moved forward this week with the potential ouster of two elected officials, including gun control activist David Hogg.
Now officials find themselves in a war of words over the issues at play, with Hogg alleging the move is a sign of party insiders seeking to force him out over his calls for supporting primary challengers to certain incumbents.
Though others at the DNC deny the vote was related to Hogg's efforts, the feud is stirring up drama that Democrats want to avoid as they focus on regaining control of the House and possibly flipping the Senate next year.
'I hate to be the party of chaos when the GOP is doing such a good job of it,' Democratic consultant Marj Halperin said. 'This isn't the priority voters want the DNC to be focused on.'
Pressure had been bubbling up for weeks, even before the DNC's Credentials Committee voted Monday in favor of holding a new election for the two positions that Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta currently hold.
Hogg, who was elected to one of the DNC's vice chair positions in February, first sparked controversy last month when he indicated that his group, Leaders We Deserve, would launch a $20 million effort to back primary challenges to incumbent House Democrats in safe seats. He emphasized that the group wouldn't target Democrats running in competitive districts or those who have been effective at standing up to President Trump.
'The reality is you should not be worried about this if you are a member of Congress if you are effective like [Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)], for example, or [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.],' he told The Hill at the time. 'What we are looking at is places where the elected official has not done a great job being effective against Trump.'
But that met opposition from DNC Chair Ken Martin, who said shortly after that all DNC officials should remain neutral in primaries, saying Hogg is free to challenge incumbents but not as a DNC officer. He also said he has 'great respect' for Hogg as an 'amazing young leader.'
Hogg argued in response that he wasn't violating any DNC rules.
But these tensions look poised to come to a head following the Credentials Committee's vote, which was in favor of a complaint from a losing candidate for a vice chair position who argued the election procedure violated DNC rules. The entire DNC membership must vote to determine whether to redo the election in the coming months.
The complaint was filed shortly after the election — well before the controversy surrounding Hogg — but he has argued the development needs to be viewed in the context of the latest developments, saying his work to reform the party 'loomed large over this vote.'
But that has sparked pushback from some — including Kenyatta, the other vice chair — who maintain that the decision is not about Hogg and that he's trying to make the story about himself.
Democrats said regardless of who is right, the bickering isn't a good look for the party as it needs to present a unified message opposing the Republicans' agenda.
Democratic strategist Max Burns said he expects the public will likely view it as the DNC pushing out Hogg, but the broader issue is with the confusion over the DNC's rules.
'The reality is that the DNC's rules have clearly become so confusing that not even senior officials have any idea how to understand them,' he said.
He warned the infighting could become an issue for those on both sides of the argument, as young people and Democrats who were considering getting more involved in the party could be turned off, creating a 'negative image all around.'
'The result is that it just becomes such an unattractive proposition for people to get involved with,' Burns said. 'It hurts the party on an infrastructural level when your operation looks this scattershot.'
Even as the direct issue has just focused on internal party positions, the debate has broader implications and has stirred strong emotions.
Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said the takeaway that people will have is the party is targeting a 'young vibrant force in the party' who is trying to make it 'bolder.'
'That's the tragedy of Ken Martin picking a fight with David Hogg,' he said.
'Most people's impression of the Democratic Party is that it's defending a broken status quo and failing to shake up a broken political and economic system,' Green said.
Kenyatta has denounced Hogg's framing of the issue, arguing he has a 'casual relationship with the truth.' He said Hogg's statements about the DNC's move pushed him 'over the edge' despite wanting to avoid adding to party infighting.
'But David's first statement out of the gate was, 'Here's the Democratic Party doing some maniacal thing to push me out' because of what he's doing with his PAC,' Kenyatta said. 'David knows that that is not true.'
Hogg in an interview with The Washington Post said he doesn't take the criticism of him personally and what's happening is just about differing tactics.
'This is purely about a strategic disagreement, and should be treated as such, because we're all on the same side here. It's about, how do we create the strongest Democratic Party possible?'
Meanwhile, Martin has expressed optimism about the party's recent wins in competitive races, making a subtle reference to the drama while pointing to Democrat John Ewing Jr.'s ousting of a three-term incumbent Republican mayor in Omaha.
'A lotta people in DC want to win the argument. I want to win elections,' he said Wednesday in a post on social platform X. 'Last night's huge victory in Omaha speaks to the power of 'organizing everywhere' — our new mission at the DNC.'
Democratic strategist Matt Grodsky said he isn't as worried about the turmoil leading to a wider issue for Democrats broadly, saying most people living their daily lives aren't concerned with such fighting.
'At the end of the day, when it comes to the midterms, and if things stay the way they are, they're going to have two options. Do we want to continue with what Republicans are offering, or we want to go with what Democrats are offering?' Grodsky said. 'And I don't think that the intraparty fighting is going to be a big factor in that.'
But he added that the longer the focus is on 'little fights and spats,' the harder it will be for the party to be able to focus on fundraising and candidate recruitment.
The strategists all expressed some amount of sympathy with Hogg's broader effort to support younger challengers to longtime incumbents but said the DNC needs to be focused.
Halperin said the party should focus on broader strategies to try to move forward, looking at the long-term incumbents and if they genuinely have support from their districts. She said the answer will vary from district to district, but the listening needs to come from outside the 'inner circle.'
'It sort of looks like we're going to talk internally and get our house in order the way we think it should be, then we'll be ready to go and talk to voters,' she said. 'I think that's backwards.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Now that Supreme Court is out for the summer, will Congress finally do its job?
Now that Supreme Court is out for the summer, will Congress finally do its job?

USA Today

time21 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Now that Supreme Court is out for the summer, will Congress finally do its job?

Congress is lazy and will inevitably take the path of least effort. The legislative branch needs to reclaim its role as policymakers, rather than allowing the president to usurp its responsibilities. The Supreme Court's term may have ended, but we'll still be sifting through the fallout of the justices' final decisions for some time. On June 27, the Supreme Court ended universal injunctions, the controversial orders that judges used to block executive actions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was very combative with her liberal dissenters, namely Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for focusing on the ramifications of this decision, rather than attempting to decipher what the law says. While Barrett is right to be frustrated with her ideological opposites, it doesn't mean that their pragmatic concerns are not very real. The end of universal injunctions opens doors for the executive branch to further expand its power, if Congress does not step up to the plate. Opinion: Supreme Court's birthright citizenship opinion reveals rising hostility, tension Ending universal injunctions has real fallout Not only have recent presidents become more lawless, but they also have become more ambitious in their lawmaking authority. Rather than going through Congress, the constitutionally intended legislative body, the executive has broadly usurped those responsibilities. The result has been a higher volume of executive orders. These orders also continue to push the bounds of what the president can accomplish with the stroke of his pen. As brazenly unconstitutional as the Trump administration's position is when it comes to its redefinition of birthright citizenship, the executive action at the center of this case, I completely understand why President Donald Trump's detractors are genuinely concerned about this Supreme Court holding. The universal injunction had become the primary tool for blocking policies that are as constitutionally suspect as this one, at least until their merits can be evaluated. These injunctions provided instant and broad relief against unconstitutional policies. However, there is another side to that coin, which is that some perfectly appropriate executive actions get blocked under the broad authority of universal injunctions. This problem is exacerbated in that litigants can bring cases in favorable districts anywhere in the country, and have the resulting injunctions impact the entire United States. Presidents like Donald Trump and Joe Biden, who both have acted outright lawlessly, haven't helped their case. Presidents who act lawlessly are obviously more likely to have courts block policies that fit that same pattern, rather than give them the benefit of the doubt. Opinion: Trump delaying the TikTok ban is the most lawless thing he's done yet Surely, as injunctions become the chief tool for combating these actions, the system has developed a level of reliance on them. Now, a new framework for combating executive overreach needs to be developed. Alternatives to injunctions are more cumbersome While the Supreme Court said that 'universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,' the majority opinion did not rule out the prospect of similar relief being granted when states sue the federal government. Opinion: Senate just passed Trump's Big Beautiful Bill – and made it even uglier The primary form of relief expected to fill the void of universal injunctions is class action lawsuits, which are more procedurally burdensome on those seeking relief than the recent history of universal injunctions, but lawsuits still are an effective way for those impacted by unlawful executive orders to challenge them. However, class actions aren't the only possible alternative. Congressional members, if they ever decide they want to speak up, could also pass legislation clarifying in what circumstances universal injunctions can be levied against executive actions. The Supreme Court has begrudgingly tossed the ball back into Congress' court, but it's unlikely it will do anything productive with this opportunity. Instead, members of Congress are likely to allow more and more power to be ceded to the presidency, because the executive is doing much of the work they should be doing. My thesis for years at this point has been that Congress is outright lazy and will inevitably take the path of least effort. Congress needs to reclaim its role as policymakers, rather than allowing the president to usurp its responsibilities further. However, none of this undermines the idea that the Supreme Court did its job on nationwide injunctions, determining what the law says on the matter. All of this simply reinforces just how damaging it is to our government that Congress refuses to work. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will continue to be blamed by Americans for the problems that are really created by Congress. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

ActBlue brings in nearly $400 million more for Democrats despite Trump's pressure on the fundraising platform
ActBlue brings in nearly $400 million more for Democrats despite Trump's pressure on the fundraising platform

CNN

time22 minutes ago

  • CNN

ActBlue brings in nearly $400 million more for Democrats despite Trump's pressure on the fundraising platform

President Donald Trump's demand for an investigation into ActBlue worried some Democrats who argue his order was not about allegations of campaign finance violations, but an attempt to stifle liberal campaigns. So far, ActBlue remains a Democratic juggernaut. The platform brought in more than $393 million during the second quarter of this year, nearly on par with the $400 million it processed in the first quarter, according to figures shared first with CNN. The April-to-June haul marks a roughly 36% jump from its second-quarter receipts of $289 million in 2021, at the start of Democrat Joe Biden's term. ActBlue said 400,000 more unique donors are giving through the platform today than four years ago. The new figures offer the first snapshot of ActBlue's fundraising since Trump's order and come amid escalating attacks on the platform from Republicans who control the White House and Congress. The platform remains integral to Democratic campaigns trying to capitalize on progressive anger at Trump's second-term agenda, even as some Democrats adopt ActBlue alternatives. Trump issued a directive in late April that the Justice Department investigate the platform — one of a series of actions that the president has taken since returning to the White House that target his political rivals or others he views as acting counter to his agenda. 'Even amid the coordinated and rigged effort from the GOP to attack ActBlue and Democratic infrastructure, small-dollar donors aren't backing down and it's adding up,' ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones said in a statement to CNN. She said the second-quarter results make clear that 'grassroots supporters are leaning in, giving in record numbers, and our platform is powering that momentum.' 'ActBlue continues to be the trusted home for Democratic donors who are ready to meet this moment — and win,' she added. ActBlue has collected more than $17 billion since its founding in 2004, and millions of users have saved their contact and payment information with the group, allowing contributors to easily make one-click donations. In the 2024 cycle alone, ActBlue raised more than $3.8 billion — more than double the roughly $1.7 billion collected by WinRed, the platform Republicans created in 2019 to compete with Democrats for small-dollar donations. Eric Wilson, a Republican digital strategist who runs the Center for Campaign Innovation, said his party has struggled to match Democrats' online fundraising prowess. He argues the problem has grown starker as Democrats do better with college-educated and higher-income voters while Republicans make inroads with the working class. 'As the Democratic base becomes wealthier, that's where you are going to see people with the extra money to spend' on donations, he said, 'whereas the Republican coalition is more working class under President Trump.' Part of ActBlue's staying power, he added, stems from its long track record with contributors. 'Donors have their payment information saved. It's convenient,' he said. But the flurry of activity targeting ActBlue has underscored the need for alternatives, some party strategists say. Betsy Hoover, an alum of former President Barack Obama's campaigns and co-founder of the Democratic tech accelerator Higher Ground Labs, said ActBlue has been a monopoly 'in a good way' for the party. 'There is a lot of efficiency achieved by all of us going through one platform.' But, she added, 'as much as we don't like what the Trump administration is doing, it's foolish to be dependent on a singular platform with no alternative.' Higher Ground Labs investments in the Democratic fundraising landscape include Oath, which focuses on connecting donors to campaigns where they can have the most impact on electoral outcomes, and GoodChange, launched in 2023 by two veteran political fundraisers. GoodChange has signed up about 300 clients, ranging from campaigns to civic nonprofits, since its inception, according to its co-founder Becky Pittman. In recent months, GoodChange has signed deals with seven state parties. Cheryl Biller, the North Dakota Democratic Party's executive director, said she decided to add GoodChange as a way to process contributions late last year because she was drawn to some of its innovations. GoodChange offers a feature that allows donors to direct extra change from their everyday purchases to the party's coffers. But having another tool to process contributions grew all the more important once Trump signed the memorandum in April ordering the ActBlue investigation, she said. 'I am pleased that we were ahead of the curve,' Biller said. If ActBlue were to become endangered, 'for us to shift completely to GoodChange wouldn't be hard,' she added. Oath, meanwhile, focuses on helping donors maximize the impact of the spending by guiding them to competitive contests and to candidates aligned with the contributors' top policy concerns. But CEO and co-founder Brian Derrick said his team also has notified donors that 'if ActBlue, for any amount of time, is unable to process donations, we will step into the breach.' 'To be clear, we do not want that to happen. It's a deeply partisan and political attack,' he said of the Republican-led investigations. 'But we also recognize the potential ramifications of it happening nonetheless.' The investigation on Capitol Hill has escalated in recent weeks with the chairmen of three House committees at the center of the probe issuing subpoenas that order a current ActBlue employee and a former executive with the platform to appear for depositions later this month. The lawmakers are examining allegations that ActBlue has allowed illegal donations made in the name of another person, known as straw donations, as well as contributions from foreign sources. ActBlue leaders, who initially cooperated with the congressional probe, have pushed back recently, arguing that lawmakers may be improperly using their powers to support the Justice Department probe ordered by Trump. Additionally, they argue that the probe amounts to a partisan attack, given that the GOP-aligned WinRed platform appears to have escaped similar scrutiny, A CNN investigation last year found that WinRed had nearly seven times more complaints filed with the Federal Trade Commission than ActBlue. To date, the Justice Department has not announced any actions against ActBlue. Trump's directive gave Attorney General Pam Bondi 180 days — or until late October — to report the results of the investigation to the White House.

New Memo Rebuts Epstein Conspiracies: What to Know
New Memo Rebuts Epstein Conspiracies: What to Know

Time​ Magazine

time22 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

New Memo Rebuts Epstein Conspiracies: What to Know

The 2019 death in jail of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire financier connected with some of the most powerful people in the world and who was facing trial on sex trafficking charges, has long been the subject of fascination and conspiracy theories, especially by the right. Some were convinced he was killed in an effort to keep concealed a 'list' of his high-profile co-conspirators, despite longtime observers repeatedly indicating that no such list existed. President Donald Trump said during his 2024 campaign that he'd publicly release such records if he was elected again. But after he returned to office, his Administration disappointed anticipators of the so-called 'Epstein Files' when it touted a batch of mostly already public records, despite Attorney General Pam Bondi having previously said that the client list was 'sitting on my desk right now to review.' Bondi at the time blamed the FBI for not abiding by her directive to provide the 'full and complete' set of Epstein-related documents in the government's possession, and right-wing conspiracy theorists have since turned on FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, both of whom had previously promoted Epstein-related conspiracy theories, for supposedly succumbing to the so-called 'Deep State' since taking up their roles. After Trump's ally-turned-critic Elon Musk left the Administration at the end of May, Musk fueled further conspiracy theories and calls for transparency when he suggested that Trump was implicated in unreleased Epstein files. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote in a since-deleted post on X. (Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in his associations with Epstein.) But a new Justice Department and FBI memo, obtained by Axios and ABC News, aims to put the Epstein conspiracy theories to rest, asserting that there is no evidence that the man who 'harmed over one thousand victims' was murdered, engaged in blackmail, or kept a client list. The memo cited and provided links hosted on the website to video footage of the Manhattan facility where Epstein was detained when he died. The Justice Department and FBI did not immediately confirm nor deny the authenticity of the memo, which was unsigned and undated. TIME has reached out to both for comment. 'One of our highest priorities is combatting child exploitation and bringing justice to victims,' the memo stated. 'Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends.' 'We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties,' the memo also stated, adding that 'no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.' Already, the memo has incited furious reactions on the right. 'So Epstein was trafficking these underage girls to nobody? Is Pam Bondi serious?' conservative activist Robby Starbuck posted on X. 'What Epstein and his ilk did was pure evil and this memo attempts to just close the book on it like there's no one else involved.' 'At this point, it goes FAR beyond simply being DUPED…' posted The Patriot Voice founder John Sabal, who is also known as QAnon John. 'This is the Trump Administration SPITTING IN EVERYONE'S FACE & CURB STOMPING MAGA/EPSTEIN VICTIMS.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store