Connect with us

Politics

The Next Generation of Democrats Don’t Plan to Wait Their Turn

Published

on

The Next Generation of Democrats Don’t Plan to Wait Their Turn

George Hornedo, a liberal activist and Democratic Party strategist in Indianapolis, had already been weighing a primary challenge to the local congressman when he was confronted last month by a senior Indiana Democrat.

Asked whether he was planning a run, Mr. Hornedo, 34, acknowledged he was considering it. The woman, he recalled, told him he was “going to get hurt.” He posted his recounting of the interaction on TikTok, where it quickly went viral. “Don’t let them scare you off,” one commenter wrote.

On Wednesday, Mr. Hornedo announced his campaign against the nine-term incumbent, Representative André Carson, while deriding him and those like him as “do-nothing Democrats” and promising a new generation of leadership for Washington. “The Democratic Party cannot win the future with a leadership structure that is built for the past,” he said in an interview.

A small but growing group of young Democrats are being propelled to act by outrage among rank-and-file voters, and especially among young people. Infuriated by the early months of President Trump’s second term, impatient with the status quo and frustrated with party leadership, they are mounting bids for office.

In California, Jake Rakov, 37, a onetime Capitol Hill aide to Representative Brad Sherman, 70, is challenging his former boss. And even Representative Nancy Pelosi, 85, the California Democrat who stepped down from her two-decade leadership role in 2023, faces a primary challenge, from Saikat Chakrabarti, 39, the former campaign manager for Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who ran a similar playbook in her first race for Congress.

Advertisement

Some of these efforts look like long shots against well-funded and better-known incumbents. But they amount to a manifestation of the anger felt by voters toward the Democratic Party — after President Joseph R. Biden Jr., ignoring their concerns, waited until late in the game to abandon his attempt at re-election — and the sentiment that a younger generation might be better equipped to oppose Mr. Trump.

“They’re looking to build a Democratic Party that will fight instead of fold,” said Amanda Litman, the leader of Run for Something, a progressive group that pushes young Democrats to run for office. Young people, Ms. Litman said, were essentially saying: “It’s time to pass the torch. And if they’re not going to pass it, we’re going to take it.”

Here’s a look at three young Democrats who recently announced runs for office.

A member of the Indiana Democratic Party representing the Latino caucus, Mr. Hornedo (rhymes with tornado) has a résumé that does not quite qualify him as a party outsider. He held a communications role in the Obama administration’s Justice Department and has worked for a range of prominent Democrats, including Pete Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary, who has had presidential ambitions.

But Mr. Hornedo said he rejected any labels like “progressive” or “establishment,” arguing instead that the split in the party is between those like himself who feel a sense of urgency to shake up the status quo and those “who believe that our system and institutions are largely working for people, and we simply have to protect them and manage them in this decline.”

Advertisement

Mr. Hornedo said that he planned to take a more active role than Mr. Carson in building up the Democrats’ bench in Indiana and that he was especially interested in pushing for more affordable housing in Indianapolis, which Mr. Carson has represented since 2008. In a statement, Mr. Carson said he was a lifelong progressive and invited “all voices to join me to defeat far-right extremism.”

Kat Abughazaleh, a 26-year-old former researcher for Media Matters, a liberal advocacy organization, first gained online attention for her social media posts and videos skewering conservative media personalities.

Last month, she entered the political arena herself, announcing a primary challenge against Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat first elected the year Ms. Abughazaleh was born, with an unusual tagline: “What if we didn’t suck?”

Ms. Abughazaleh (pronounced AH-boo-guh-ZAH-lay) said she had grown tired of watching Democrats compromise and work with Mr. Trump, and had been dismayed to see Democratic leaders who had called Mr. Trump a fascist and a threat to democracy show up to his inauguration.

“I was hoping that someone would do something in the chambers or legislatively, or speak out,” she said. “And instead, there were a lot of headlines of, ‘Oh, we want to work with DOGE’ — compromising on basic human rights, rolling over almost immediately,” she added, referring to Elon Musk’s effort to slash the federal government, known as the Department of Government Efficiency. Eventually, she said she realized that “we’re all we’ve got — no one else is coming to save us.”

Advertisement

Ms. Abughazaleh, a progressive who is making the cost of living a major part of her platform, is taking on a fellow progressive in Ms. Schakowsky. But she argues that it is time for Ms. Schakowsky, who is 80, to give way to a new generation.

In a statement, Ms. Schakowsky said that she had not yet decided whether to retire or run for re-election but that she welcomed “new faces getting involved as we stand up against the Trump administration.”

Deja Foxx’s upbringing would stand out among members of the House. Growing up in Tucson, Ariz., Ms. Foxx was homeless at one point as a teenager, and she worked at a gas station to help make ends meet.

While in high school in 2017, she confronted Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a Republican, at a town hall, asking him about his support for a bill that allowed states to direct funding away from Planned Parenthood, an exchange that went viral. Since then, Ms. Foxx has worked on Democratic campaigns, including on former Vice President Kamala Harris’s run last year.

But last November left her disheartened. And Ms. Foxx, 24, was alarmed by the relatively staid reactions from Democrats to Mr. Trump’s joint address to Congress in March, which she attended in person.

Advertisement

“I left balancing both a feeling of disappointment and a sense of urgency,” she said, adding later, “These cannot be the people who are standing between Donald Trump and Elon Musk and your grandmother’s Social Security checks.” She went on, “These cannot be our strongest fighters.”

Ms. Foxx announced a run for an open House seat in southern Arizona this month, joining a crowded special election field vying to replace Representative Raúl Grijalva, who died of complications from lung cancer in March. She said she was representing young people and members of the working class who want to see a fiercer resistance to Mr. Trump.

“For the people who tell me to sit down and wait my turn, I have nothing to say to them other than, ‘We don’t have time to waste,’” she said.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending