Congress

The Democratic Socialists of America are leaving it all on the field in NYC

Published

4 months ago

June 17, 2026

NEW YORK — The Democratic Socialists of America are facing a reckoning in New York City — and there’s a lot on the line.

Two members of the hard-left group’s New York City chapter are running for congressional seats in this month’s primaries, vying to topple more mainstream Democrats — including one incumbent.

If the DSA’s candidates, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier, prevail, it will prove the ascendent organization can capitalize on the momentum generated by Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s once-improbable 2025 election win. Victories for Valdez and Avila Chevalier would expand socialist influence on Capitol Hill as the Democratic Party continues to grapple with its ideological identity after getting shellacked in the 2024 elections. And it would likely embolden the DSA to expand its political footprint — accelerating its evolution from insurgent movement to political institution.

But if one or both candidates lose, the DSA’s growth arc in New York would experience its first major dip since November, raising the prospect that the pendulum for Democrats may be swinging toward the middle. Defeat would also reflect poorly on Mamdani, who expended significant political capital to endorse Valdez and especially Avila Chevalier, who’s challenging a veteran New York congressional delegation member with deep ties to party leadership.

“Our goal is to win major races that show the Democratic Party establishment that our agenda is what working class New Yorkers demand,” Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of the DSA’s New York City chapter, told Blue Light News. “The stakes couldn’t be higher for us.”

There’s a third insurgent candidate challenging an incumbent House member in New York City’s June 23 primaries: Former City Comptroller Brad Lander, who’s hoping to unseat Rep. Dan Goldman.

Lander isn’t a DSA member and hasn’t earned the group’s endorsement. But he’s campaigned to the left of Goldman, giving that primary a sense of importance for the broader progressive movement — especially since Mamdani is Lander’s top endorser.

There are currently only two members of Congress who qualify themselves as DSA comrades: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). To that end, the DSA could double its presence in Congress if both Avila Chevalier and Valdez win their races.

In a sign that the three competitive New York City primaries are important for democratic socialism on a national level, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the patriarch of the modern American left, plans to headline a rally Thursday in Brooklyn with Valdez, Avila Chevalier and Lander. Sanders — who has endorsed democratic socialist candidates across the country this year — is also expected to be joined on stage by Mamdani.

The DSA’s influence in New York has increased considerably since Mamdani’s rise, but it hasn’t been without growing pains.

Take New York’s 7th Congressional District. Valdez, a state Assembly member, is facing off against Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and City Council member Julie Won in a race to replace retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez.

Velázquez, a matriarch of local progressive politics and an early supporter of Mamdani’s 2025 run, has soured on the mayor — and the DSA as a whole — after they threw their weight behind Valdez despite the outgoing incumbent’s wishes to be succeeded by Reynoso.

In a candidate forum last week, Reynoso, a non-DSA progressive, suggested the socialist group has turned into a “machine” with Mamdani as its “boss” — language that harkens back to an era when the heads of the city’s county parties ruled local politics and could handpick whoever they wanted for any given elected office.

“She is beholden to the powers of the new administration, the same way all political machines are,” Reynoso said of Valdez at the June 8 forum hosted by WNYC.

There are indeed aspects of the DSA’s operational structure that resemble the component parts of a political machine.

With Mamdani as its figurehead, the DSA’s leaders rarely criticize him — even when he stakes out policy positions that run afoul of their dogma — a reticence that evokes how the county bosses of yesteryear were loath to tolerate dissent among their ranks (the group did issue a rare rebuke of Mamdani last week over his support for increasing the NYPD headcount this year).

The DSA has also shown itself highly capable of deploying thousands of loyal volunteers on canvassing efforts for its preferred candidates — another hallmark of a machine.

Basil Smikle, a political scientist and former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party, said the DSA is on its way to becoming a full-fledged political machine, but argued it’s not quite there yet.

“If they start creating local political clubs in individual neighborhoods, push to create its own ballot line and, frankly, just win more elections so they have more members in positions of power, that’s when it really starts to become the sort of machine that’s systemic and more similar to the old school political machines,” he said.

Frank Carone, an attorney who has been deeply involved in the Brooklyn Democratic Party for decades, said he “can certainly see why” Reynoso would draw the comparison, noting that the DSA’s canvassing prowess is undeniable.

But Carone, an ardent DSA critic and confidant of former Mayor Eric Adams, said Reynoso’s attempt to use the machine term as a cudgel against the socialist group is “bullshit.”

“Same way he did against county back then, he’s doing it against DSA now,” Carone said, referring to Reynoso’s longrunning beef with the Brooklyn Democratic Party. “Any time you’re invoking emotion to do this type of name-calling, it’s bullshit. It’s essentially cowardly.”

In an interview last Wednesday, Valdez also took a dig at Reynoso for the machine jab.

“The Brooklyn borough president doesn’t understand where DSA’s power comes from,” she said. “Our membership is the boss of this organization. We steer the ship, and it’s a misunderstanding to say there’s a single figurehead.”

As it relates to the looming election, Valdez said “the power” the DSA has built in New York won’t dissipate even if she and Avila Chevalier lose their races. If they win, “it would cement this organization as a major power-player in New York City,” said Valdez, who first joined the DSA in 2019.

Polling has been scant in the race for the 7th District, which spans gentrifying parts of Brooklyn and Queens. A PIX11 survey released on May 21 showed Valdez and Reynoso neck-and-neck, with Won far behind in third place.

Asked how much is at stake for the DSA in the race, Reynoso told Blue Light News he’s “glad to see this much energy on the left.”

“The only way any of us actually delivers for working people is by working together instead of fighting over who gets the credit,” he said. “With Trump back in the White House and ICE tearing families apart, that is the fight that matters, and I intend to be a partner to every group ready to roll up their sleeves and get something done.”

On the other side of the East River, Avila Chevalier has emerged as the DSA’s riskiest gamble this election cycle.

A first-time candidate known for her pro-Palestinian activism, Avila Chevalier is challenging Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who has over the years built a political machine of his own in upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx.

As in the Valdez-Reynoso-Won race, there hasn’t been much polling in the contest between Espaillat and Avila Chevalier. A survey conducted last week on behalf of a pro-Espaillat super PAC found him leading Avila Chevalier by a 35-27 percentage point margin. A second poll commissioned at the beginning of this month by Justice Democrats, a progressive group supportive of Avila Chevalier, showed her beating Espaillat by a 39-35 margin, though that survey only had a sample size of 319 likely voters.

For the DSA, any momentum stands to be blunted, however, by a torrent of old social media posts from Avila Chevalier. In her since-deleted missives, she denigrated Democratic politicians, the police, Israel and private property. The posts have surfaced since Mamdani and the DSA got behind her. Espaillat and super PACs that support him have seized on her social media history, airing ads that characterize her past online screeds as evidence she’s too extreme.

“This is what it looks like when movements stop asking for a seat at the table and start building our own,” Avila Chevalier said in a statement when asked about the DSA’s impact on her campaign. “Our movement is fighting for and powered by the people, and I look forward to bringing it home for our community on June 23.”

Ironically for the DSA, Lander seems like the most potent progressive running for Congress in New York City this cycle. Polls are showing him ahead of Goldman by double digits, and he has benefited greatly from an endorsement from Mamdani, who won Goldman’s Manhattan and Brooklyn district by a wide margin in last year’s mayoral election.

The DSA generally doesn’t endorse candidates who aren’t dues-paying members. Lander, who’s Jewish, left the DSA in late 2023 over the group hosting a rally ostensibly celebrating Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack against Israel shortly after it happened.

Gordillo, the DSA co-chair, would not comment on Lander’s race. But speaking generally, he said he’s bullish about pickups in New York City.

“Last year’s mayoral election showed there’s a citywide constituency for democratic socialist politics,” he said.

Congress

GOP-linked PAC spends over $1M to boost third-party socialist in Ohio Senate race

Published

11 hours ago

October 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A GOP-aligned super PAC has more-than tripled its investment in the Ohio Senate race over the last week as it seeks to boost a socialist candidate — an apparent attempt to sink former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown’s chances.

Enough Promises Ohio, which was created last month, has spent a combined $1.58 million to promote Greg Levy and oppose Brown, according to recent filings from the Federal Election Commission. Levy, a candidate with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, is also on the ballot in the tight race for Senate between Brown and Ohio GOP Sen. Jon Husted. He’s running a longshot bid, currently polling at 5 percent, but could siphon away more progressive voters from Brown.

It wouldn’t be the first time this cycle that operatives for a major political party attempted to raise a third-party candidate’s profile to meddle with the outcome. Recent public polling shows a dead heat between Brown and Husted in the race.

The super PAC spent a total of $828,359 on mailers supporting Levy or opposing Brown. Spectrum News, The Washington Post and Axios previously reported Enough Promises Ohio spent $400,000 on such mailers, but the expenditure has since grown.

The group also poured an additional $753,000 into ads supporting Levy and opposing Brown over the weekend, including one video ad on Google that knocks Brown as someone who “sold us out” and boosts “real progressive Greg Levy.”

The campaign finance filings show Enough Promises Ohio used a printing company linked to a Republican political firm, Whistletop Strategies. Whistletop has worked with an affiliate of President Donald Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC and lists as its “director” Big Dog Strategies, which helped run Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno’s 2024 election campaign and is a consultant for the Ohio GOP.

Enough Promises Ohio did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did Big Dog Strategies.

Amy Natoce, a spokesperson for the Husted campaign, told Blue Light News, “our campaign had no involvement with the group you are referencing. Therefore, we have no comment.”

Levy himself has distanced himself from the PAC, calling its boosting of him an “attempted deception of voters” that’s “a form of digital blackface.” Levy is Black. His spokesperson, Charlie Koenigsmark, also told Blue Light News he and the campaign “completely condemn this attempt to manipulate voters.”

Brown did not respond to a request for comment.

Congress

Capitol agenda: AI experts to school Congress wanted

Published

19 hours ago

October 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Artificial intelligence is challenging some lawmakers’ confidence that they have the capacity to regulate it.

The slow pace of Congress and a challenging political environment are already working against lawmakers under pressure to address AI threats. There’s also a significant gap in tech policy expertise.

“We need to dramatically increase the base knowledge of Congress if we’re going to legislate meaningfully,” Rep. Sam Liccardo said in a recent interview.

One big concern is at the staffing level: getting people with a deep understanding of the technology around rank-and-file members. Aides who specialize in tech policy often get lured to private companies with huge salaries that can be hard to resist.

Some lawmakers, like Rep. Mark Takano, are advocating for an in-house hub — something like the long-defunct Office of Technology Assessment, which helped Congress understand emerging technology and its social and policy implications from 1972 until it was scrapped in 1995. A Takano aide said he’ll introduce a bipartisan bill to restore such an office in the coming weeks.

Members have also been leaning on fellows from TechCongress — a nonprofit founded by former congressional aide Travis Moore that places technology experts in member and committee offices.

Moore said in an interview that there are plenty of people who want to work on Capitol Hill, but it’s a matter of “Congress’s will and capacity to absorb that talent.”

Not everybody buys into the theory that staffing will solve the problem. Some conservatives, in particular, have seized on the lack of member expertise to argue for a hands-off regulatory approach.

“We don’t understand it well enough,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis, who has repeatedly brought in technology experts through the TechCongress fellowship, told reporters this month. “We don’t have the expertise to do it.”

“Do you really trust the members of Congress, who barely understand AI, to write the regulations around something?” added Rep. Eric Burlison in an interview last month.

There are a few members who consider themselves fluent in AI policy, including several who have joined working groups on it. They’ve taken educating their colleagues into their own hands but have not always seen great enthusiasm.

Liccardo, for example, recounted how he has brought in experts to brief lawmakers — including huge AI industry figures like Sam Altman of OpenAI and Dario Amodei of Anthropic— only to struggle to convince members to attend.

“We have had challenges in the past trying to get folks’ attention to the issues,” he said.

What else we’re watching:

— WRIGHT: LAWMAKERS ARE ‘WRONG’ ON RUSSIA: Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Sunday dismissed bipartisan criticism when asked about lawmakers warning that President Donald Trump’s diesel deal would help finance Russia. “In fact, they are all wrong. They don’t understand what President Trump’s doing,” Wright said on ABC News. Wright also defended Trump’s decision Friday exempting Russia from key sanctions outlined in the late Sen. Lindsey Graham sanctions law, which was enacted just last month and set to take effect Sunday. The moves have drawn bipartisan outcry.

— PILOT BILLS GET COMEDIAN’S HELP — Lawmakers are targeting year-end enactment of a pair of bipartisan bills aimed at helping pilots deal with mental health issues and hazy medication regulations, thanks in part to a comedian with an HBO show. Lawmakers and others credit Nathan Fielder, star of the docu-comedy “The Rehearsal” for raising awareness on the stresses pilots face in the hit show last year. They say Fielder wasn’t actively involved in lobbying despite pleas from some for help. “Frankly, I’m glad he elevated the story,” Rep. Sean Casten, one of the lawmakers leading the mental health legislation, told Safa. After passing the Senate late last month, the two bills are awaiting House action.

Katherine Tully-McManus, Jalen Beckford and Safa Wahidi contributed to this report.

Congress

Wanted: Tech experts to help Congress regulate AI

Published

23 hours ago

October 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawmakers are under pressure to pass legislation to address the threats from advanced artificial intelligence, but many have serious doubts they have the capacity to regulate the technology’s explosive growth.

Few are expecting lawmakers themselves — some of whom still proudly use flip phones — to become AI experts overnight. But while even congressional Luddites acknowledge there is urgency for Capitol Hill to quickly expand its expertise in tech policy to help with legislating, regulating and conducting effective oversight, there’s no consensus yet on how to achieve it.

“We need to dramatically increase the base knowledge of Congress if we’re going to legislate meaningfully,” Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.) said in a recent interview.

Congress already has a long track record of lagging behind as technological innovations transform the world beyond Washington: It has adopted a largely hands-off approach to regulating the Internet as it integrated into everyday life in the past 40 years, relying instead on existing laws that govern other industries and taking smaller piecemeal bites.

The challenging political environment won’t help speed things along now: Democrats are split over whether the answer is to put guardrails on the AI industry or ban “superintelligence” entirely, while many Republicans — including President Donald Trump — warn that any regulation would stifle innovation and cede ground to China.

Some members consider themselves fluent in AI policy, including several who have joined working groups on AI policy. Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) have pursued masters degrees in AI and machine learning, in addition to many others who are self-taught.

The “overwhelming number” of lawmakers have some idea of what AI is and what it is capable of, Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-N.C.), co-chair of a House Democratic commission on AI policy, said in a recent interview. But, she added, “None of us can say that we understand where it’s going.”

The larger concern is at the staff level — putting people with real expertise around the rank-and-file members who don’t have the bandwidth or interest in educating themselves on the frontier of the industry. Aides who do specialize in tech policy often get lured to the industry with huge salaries that can be hard to resist.

That’s where Travis Moore, a former congressional staffer, has spent more than a decade trying to help.

In 2015, Moore left his post as legislative director for Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and founded TechCongress, a nonprofit that places technology experts in member and committee offices. The hope is that those offices will be convinced to hire those fellows full-time — or at least recognize the need to secure in-house tech policy expertise.

“You should have a technologist at the table to at least mitigate the unknown unknowns,” Moore said, regardless of what members themselves know about technology.

As AI has boomed, so has demand for TechCongress’ fellows: In the last two years, Moore has fielded more than 1,200 applications for about 36 fellowship slots through the program, which does not accept funding from corporations or tech companies.

Of nearly 130 fellows selected through the program since its founding, Moore said 32 were later hired full-time. Two-thirds of all the fellows have pursued careers in public service, either on Capitol Hill or other government roles.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), one of the leaders on AI policy on Capitol Hill, is among the offices that currently employs a TechCongress fellow. The House Judiciary Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) also host fellows.

Moore says his initiative has shown there are plenty of people who want to work on Capitol Hill to help inform some of the most pressing issues of the moment — even when more lucrative salaries in the private sector beckon.

“The constraint is not talent supply,” Moore said in an interview. Rather, he said, it’s a matter of “Congress’s will and capacity to absorb that talent.”

Some on Capitol Hill are advocating for an in-house hub — something like the long-defunct Office of Technology Assessment, which helped Congress understand emerging technology and its social and policy implications from 1972 until it was scrapped in 1995.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) has long championed efforts to revive the OTA for years and expects to reintroduce his legislation restoring the office in the coming weeks with bipartisan backing, spokesperson Austin Clark said.

Not everybody buys into the theory that staffing will solve the problem. Some conservatives, in particular, have seized on the lack of member expertise to argue for a hands-off approach to regulation.

“We don’t understand it well enough,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), who has repeatedly brought in technology experts through the TechCongress fellowship, told reporters this month. “You can’t address it based on what policymakers know about it on a one-size-fits-all universal basis. … We don’t have the expertise to do it.”

“Do you really trust the members of Congress, who barely understand AI, to write the regulations around something?” added Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) in an interview last month.

Others don’t see a hopeless cause, but a convenient excuse.

“I understand it’s hard, but lots of things we do here are hard,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview, noting that lawmakers have had to bone up quickly on everything from nuclear energy policy to complex weapons systems and advances in health care, like biologic drugs.

“I just think the industry wants us to believe that there’s seven people who understand this, and that’s just not true,” Murphy said, accusing some of his colleagues of “just throwing shit up against the wall to try to figure out how to justify doing nothing.”

A few members on both sides of the aisle have taken educating their colleagues into their own hands. Obernotle says he helped tutor more than two dozen House members through the bipartisan AI working group he chaired in the previous Congress.

Liccardo, who represents parts of Silicon Valley, recounted how he has brought in experts to brief lawmakers — including huge AI industry figures like Sam Altman of OpenAI, Dario Amodei of Anthropic and Jensen Huang of Nvidia — only to struggle to convince members to attend.

“We have had challenges in the past trying to get folks’ attention to the issues,” he said. “We have a lot of work to do, I’ll just say, to get everybody up to speed.”

Riley Rogerson, Jordain Carney and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.