Who Are the Democratic Socialists of America and How Big a Factor Are They in the Democratic Party?

Like several stories I write, I didn’t have an answer to the question posed when I started researching. I’ve been a registered Democrat since I was 18, but to my knowledge, I have never met a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), but I am aware of their recent success in local elections in New York and elsewhere. Are they the Democratic Party’s version of the Tea Party Movement, or are they something else entirely?

On Fox News, which I do watch from time to time, they make it seem like the DSA has taken over the Democratic Party, which has evolved into full-blown Communism. Democratic Party leaders are standoffish about the DSA, wary of the potential threat to their power, yet recognizing its momentum and the need to blend the DSA into the overall Party to achieve the majorities needed to wield true power.

The DSA is the largest socialist political organization in U.S. history. It was founded in 1982 through a merger of two earlier groups — the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM) — and today operates as a big‑tent, left‑wing activist organization rather than a formal political party.

In the 1980s, the DSA was led by Michael Harrington, author of The Other America. The strategy was “realignment,” working inside the Democratic Party to push it left. The DSA advocated for social justice at home and abroad.

In the1990s. they opposed cuts to welfare and neoliberal globalization. They supported Medicare for All and anti‑austerity efforts.

Between 2000–2015, they opposed the Iraq War. They also supported Occupy Wall Street, racial justice, and feminist movements. They remained relatively small, reaching about 6,000 members by 2015. The combination of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns and the election of Donald Trump triggered a massive surge:

Membership grew from 6,000 to over 120,000 in 2026.
Younger, more activist membership shifted strategy toward building an independent political force, though internal debate continues.
There are between 45 and 49 million registered Democrats. DSA members are less than .003% of the Democratic Party
At the height of the Tea Party Movement, 48% of Republicans said they agreed with the Tea Party Movement.

It would be easy to write off the DSA as a much smaller version of the Tea Party, but that would be wrong. Comparing the percentage of Democratic Party members who are also in the DSA to Republicans who shared Tea Party beliefs is comparing apples to giraffes. If Democrats understood the DSA beliefs, I daresay they would share most of those beliefs as well. The core goals of the DSA currently include:

Core goals include:

Universal healthcare (single‑payer)
Green New Deal
Tuition‑free higher education
Strengthening labor unions
Social ownership and democratic control of the economy
Ethnic and gender equality
Non‑interventionist foreign policy (including pro‑Palestinian positions)

Of these goals, a sticking point might be social ownership and democratic control of the economy. For DSA, social ownership means that essential industries should be owned publicly or collectively rather than by private corporations. Democratic control means that workers and communities, not CEOs or shareholders, should make decisions about how those industries operate.

DSA materials describe social ownership as:

Public or collective ownership of key industries, especially “the largest corporations and essential industries.”
Ownership “in common by those who inhabit [the world], including those whose labor is historically devalued.”
A long‑term goal of replacing capitalist private property with common, democratic forms of ownership.

This can include:

Public utilities
Public banks
Worker‑owned cooperatives
Nationalized industries
Municipal or regional public enterprises

The emphasis is on meeting human needs rather than maximizing profit.

DSA frames democratic control as:

Workers having democratic control over the means of production — meaning workers collectively decide how workplaces operate.
Economic decisions made through democratic processes, not dictated by private owners or corporate boards.
A system where “working people run the economy to meet human needs rather than private profit.”

This includes:

Workplace democracy (workers electing managers or governing councils)
Strong unions and collective bargaining
Public planning of major economic sectors
Democratic oversight of public enterprises

DSA’s platform ties social ownership and democratic control to concrete proposals:

Public ownership of major corporations and essential industries (long‑term goal).
Aggressive wealth taxes to fund public goods and shift power from capital to workers.
Workplace democratization and union expansion as immediate steps.

Some of that sounds like Communism, but how does that differ from what America has done throughout history and at present? The U.S. government has taken partial or full ownership of private companies throughout American history, usually in specific circumstances like financial crises, wartime mobilization, national security, criminal enforcement, or public‑use infrastructure.

The government sometimes acquires ownership to prevent economic collapse.

General Motors (2009) — U.S. Treasury took a majority stake during the auto bailout.
AIG (2008–09) — Government acquired nearly 80% ownership to stabilize global financial markets.

Both firms bought back the government interest, though the Treasury Department lost over $11 billion on the GM deal, originally investing $51 billion and selling its GM shares for $39 billion. The government made a $22 billion profit on the AIG investment.

Government conservatorships have been used when a company is critical to the financial system. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (2008–present) — Placed under federal conservatorship; government effectively controls them. This is long‑term operational control, not classic nationalization.

Under eminent domain, the government can seize private property — including corporate assets — for public use with compensation.

Examples include:

Utility infrastructure
Land and facilities needed for public projects

Corporate eminent‑domain seizures are uncommon but legally permitted.

During major wars or emergencies, the government has temporarily taken control of industries. Historical examples:

Railroads (WWI)
Steel mills (Korean War attempt — struck down by SCOTUS)
Energy and industrial facilities during WWII

These are temporary operational takeovers, not permanent ownership.

Sometimes the government creates a corporation from scratch. An example would be the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

Under the second Trump administration (2025–2026), the U.S. Government has taken equity positions in several firms.

1. Intel Corporation (INTC)

Stake: ~9.9% equity stake
Date: August 22, 2025
Amount: ~$8.9 billion (converted from CHIPS Act grants)
Reason:
Strengthen domestic semiconductor manufacturing
Ensure secure supply chains for defense and AI
Reduce reliance on Asian foundries
Support construction of advanced fabs in Ohio and Arizona

2. MP Materials (MP)

Stake: Preferred stock + warrants ≈ 15% effective stake
Date: July 10, 2025
Amount: $400 million equity + $150 million loan
Reason:
Secure U.S. rare‑earth supply
End dependence on China (which refines >80% of global rare earths)
Support magnet production for jets, submarines, EVs, wind turbines

3. L3Harris Technologies — Missile Solutions (future spinoff: Axyv)

Stake: Convertible preferred security (equity‑linked)
Amount: $1 billion Pentagon investment
Reason:
Support defense missile systems
Provide capital ahead of spinoff into new public company

4. USA Rare Earth (USAR)

Stake: 8–16% equity stake (Commerce Department)
Date: January 2026
Amount: $277 million common stock + $1.3 billion secured loan
Reason:
Build domestic rare‑earth mining and processing
Reduce reliance on China
Support critical minerals for defense and clean energy

5. Additional Quantum Computing Companies (letters of intent)

Stake: Letters of intent for grants (not finalized equity)
Amount: $2 billion across nine companies including IBM
Reason:
Strengthen U.S. quantum computing leadership
Counter China’s advances

I have provided this information about U.S. investment in American corporations to say that America already engages in the type of behavior supported by the DSA, not even including the Communist-like policies of Social Security, public education, and welfare.

Much like the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats have no idea what is actually in the platforms of their Party (in the election years they actually decide to have a platform). I suspect most people supporting the DSA haven’t read the fine print, including the things the group supports.

What Republicans need to worry about is that their Party stands for little else other than portraying Democrats as Communists and greatly exaggerating the influence of the DSA. Traditional Republican values have fallen by the wayside, replaced by supporting a totally unworthy individual.

Democrats should be worried about the number of people within their ranks, desperate for change. Democrats need to stand for more than being against Donald Trump, and the twenty-fold increase in the DSA ranks in the past ten years is a cry for help. America’s current system with two major political parties offers little choice to the voters. One could make the case that neither Party pays close attention to the will of the voters; whether it be universal background checks for gun purchases, overturning Citizens United, raising the federal minimum wage, universal Pre-K, or federal paid family leave, all have over 70% support from the public but never become law.

I’ve always found Chuck Schumer to be a bit too satisfied with himself for political wins and unwilling to fight for things that matter. Hakeem Jeffries, who lives in New York and backed several candidates who lost to Democrats aligned with the DSA, will have to win the trust of new members of the House that he’ll need should he become the Speaker of the House after the midterms.

Conclusion

In the end, the Democratic Socialists of America are neither the Democratic Party’s Tea Party nor the caricature painted by cable news. They are the latest expression of a long American tradition: movements that rise when people believe the existing political order is no longer answering the questions that matter. Their influence is real but uneven, growing in cities and younger districts while provoking anxiety among party leaders who fear losing control of the coalition they’ve spent decades assembling.

What the DSA represents, more than anything, is a generational shift in how political power is imagined. Their members are not waiting for permission from the Democratic Party, nor are they trying to overthrow it. They are trying to reshape it from the inside. The same strategy Harrington pursued in the 1980s is now supercharged by economic precarity, climate urgency, and a political landscape fractured by distrust.

Whether the DSA becomes a lasting force or another chapter in the long story of American left movements will depend on what they build, not what their critics say. But their rise makes one thing clear: the Democratic Party is no longer a two‑lane highway. It is a multi‑tendency coalition negotiating its future in real time, and the DSA is one of the loudest, most organized voices in that conversation.

If nothing else, their presence forces the Party, and the country, to confront questions it has avoided for decades: Who should the economy serve? What does justice look like beyond slogans? And how much change are Americans actually willing to vote for?

—

This post was previously published on MEDIUM.COM.

—