On Sunday, the Democratic Socialists of America’s National Political Committee (NPC), the organization’s board of directors, convened to decide how the DSA would endorse a presidential candidate in 2028. After debating what one member called “the most contentious item that we’ve had all year,” the meeting ended without resolution.
The source of the disagreement? Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Many members see Ocasio-Cortez, who hasn’t ruled out a presidential run in 2028, as the DSA’s most likely endorsement. Others, viewing her as milquetoast and beyond DSA’s control, hope that greater participation from the broader membership can avert that outcome.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
The debate revealed a split over how electorally respectable the DSA needs to be—and how much influence its most extreme members should hold. It also exposed a contradiction at the heart of the organization: despite its claim to being champions of democracy, the organization’s core cadre deliberately structured discussion of the endorsement process to sideline the broader membership.
Ahead of Sunday’s meeting, DSA’s various caucuses began releasing statements and promotional materials outlining their positions on the proposed process for endorsing a presidential nominee. The original proposal called for a non-binding, all-member poll, with the NPC ultimately deciding which presidential candidate DSA endorses.
Some members raised concerns that the proposal—introduced by the DSA’s Presidential Exploratory Committee, which includes representatives from multiple DSA caucuses—effectively left the final endorsement decision in the hands of the NPC. Two of the Communist caucuses, Springs of Revolution and Marxist Unity Group, argued that delegates at the DSA’s 2027 National Convention should instead be the ones steering the endorsement process.
At the Sunday meeting, the DSA’s more moderate wing, led by groups such as Groundwork and Socialist Majority Caucus (SMC), argued that every member should have a voice in the decision, with Groundwork’s Kareem Elrefai calling it “the biggest decision this organization has ever made.” But they agreed that the ultimate nomination decision should be resolved by the NPC ahead of the 2027 DSA Convention.
Abdullaq Farooq, who is not part of a caucus, was more blunt about the question of power and strategy: “I think that the NPC has the right to decide who our presidential candidate should be and what that endorsement should look like, but I think that the all-member poll is just a really important way for us to engage as many people as possible in order for us to win a presidential campaign.” Farooq agreed with Groundwork and SMC that the poll was less about choosing a candidate and more about whether the DSA had the national power, capacity, and desire to pull off a presidential campaign.
The DSA’s more radical left wing disagreed with this approach. Spring of Revolution (SoR) and the Marxist Unity Group (MUG) proposed a two-part amendment that would shift the endorsement decision from the NPC to the broader membership. The first part eliminated the requirement to hold a national poll; MUG’s Cliff Connolly argued that an “internet email poll” was not a meaningful form of democracy, and that chapters should instead deliberate collectively. The second part removed the endorsement decision from the NPC, placing it instead with a special conference of elected convention delegates called the Presidential Strategy Conference. SoR argued that this was far more democratic, because “[j]ust 14 votes are necessary to secure a simple majority on the NPC—14 people with entrenched and long-standing opinions who will not be swayed by chapter discussions or member polls.”
The two amendments reflected SoR and MUG’s concern that there existed “a majority of NPC members who want to endorse [Ocasio-Cortez].” Trotskyist Sarah Milner from Reform & Revolution (R&R) offered the most candid assessment of the debate, acknowledging that “[e]veryone is going to propose a process that will favor their preferred position, their preferred outcome.”
Reflecting that concern, Milner introduced an amendment to the first section of the SoR–MUG proposal restoring the all-member, nonbinding vote and recognizing that the 2025 DSA convention’s resolution of running a candidate on a strong labor platform was not realized. Her proposal was defeated by the SoR–MUG voters, but her comments clearly explained the source of the larger dispute.
“The base reso[lution] from [2025] convention called for a left labor coalition. That didn’t happen. It was premised around a kind of campaign that is not going to be run, and now we are confronted with a potential fait accompli AOC campaign,” Milner said. “I think that our membership is excited by the enormous possibilities a presidential campaign could offer but also understands full well the enormous complications and risks of a candidate like AOC.”
The first portion of the SoR and MUG amendment, on eliminating the requirement for a national poll, passed 15–8. But despite extending the meeting by an additional hour, the NPC was unable to debate the second part of the SoR and MUG amendment, due to the acrimony of the discussion. As a result, the NPC adopted a referral motion, kicking the unresolved portion of the amendment back to the Presidential Exploratory Committee.
The DSA’s inability to resolve even the meta-question of how it will pick a presidential endorsee speaks to broader division in the group.
“What happened [on Sunday] shows a deep dysfunction in the organization and much tension around process and internal democracy,” said Jake Altman, a former DSA member who has become a vocal critic of the organization’s extreme turn. “It was all a proxy battle around AOC. There’s a lot of animosity toward her among the far left of DSA. They want someone they can pressure and control. She’s too independent for them.”
Altman added that the fight over holding this vote at the convention boils down to DSA’s far Left believing that the only people entitled to vote are the activists—that is, “the cadre who are more radicalized and committed.”
Nor can anyone predict how a future vote will go. The convention of the Young Democratic Socialists of America—the DSA’s youth wing—could throw the entire process into further uncertainty if Bread & Roses’s YDSA slate of Mae Bracelin and James Hernández wins. That would leave the more left-wing Bread & Roses tied with the more-moderate Groundwork as the largest caucus on the NPC, potentially making it the decisive bloc in the endorsement fight.
As DSA’s swing caucus, Bread & Roses often occupies a pivotal position in internal debates. Milner described Bread & Roses as “confusing and sometimes contradictory” and warned that one caucus could effectively decide for the entire DSA whether the NPC would be permitted to make a presidential endorsement on behalf of the organization.: “[I]f this passes [an amendment allowing the NPC to determine the endorsement] after YDSA convention, B&R will hold the swing vote in this process and will be the ones who make the decision on how this endorsement goes most likely.”
Realistically, Sunday was only the opening skirmish in what will likely become a prolonged bout of factional infighting, hardened grievances, and lingering resentment. For the Communist caucuses and the DSA’s broader far Left, a partial victory may ultimately prove pyrrhic. After this temporary setback, the forces determined to endorse Ocasio-Cortez now have more time to regroup, rally their troops, and keep the endorsement decision with the NPC.