Right now, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., are the only members of the Democratic Socialists of America in the House. After Tuesday’s elections, they’re all but certain to have company.

A new generation of democratic socialists is poised to expand its presence on Capitol Hill as five DSA-backed candidates, all running in safely Democratic House seats, are expected to win their first terms in Congress. They would arrive in Washington with ambitious progressive priorities and could complicate life for party leaders at a moment when even a handful of lawmakers could wield significant influence.

The first test could come in the speaker’s race. None of the five has committed to backing House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries for speaker.

“I am nobody’s rubber stamp,” said Pennsylvania state Rep. Christopher Rabb, who is running for Congress in the state’s 3rd District. “I’m committed to transformative change.”

Supporting Jeffries for speaker is “something I’m still thinking about and talking to my community about,” Darializa Avila Chevalier, who is running in New York’s 13th District and ousted Rep. Adriano Espaillat in the June primary, told MS NOW.

The other three are Melat Kiros in Colorado’s 1st District, Donavan McKinney in Michigan’s 13th and Claire Valdez in New York’s 7th. Kiros and McKinney also unseated incumbents.

Even if all five win, they would be a small faction within the Democratic caucus. But depending on the size of the incoming Democratic caucus, that could be more than enough to make their presence felt.

“Their numbers may be small,” said Christy Setzer, a Democratic strategist, “but I believe they are mighty.”

A new generation meets the progressive establishment

Their campaigns, fueled by voter frustration with the party establishment and its approach to President Donald Trump, centered on economic inequality, housing affordability, healthcare and the rising cost of living.

Setzer said the wins signaled something broader than frustration with party leaders. “There is a true hunger among the Democratic base,” she told MS NOW. Voters want relief from rising costs, she argued, and also a greater effort to hold the Trump administration accountable.

The appeal may reach beyond the Democratic base. In an Economist/YouGov poll of registered voters conducted Oct. 23-26, half said they would ever vote for a democratic socialist candidate, while 41% said they would not.

If elected, the five would join Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib in a Democratic caucus already home to prominent progressives. Along with Adam Hamawy, a progressive who was not endorsed by DSA and is the Democratic nominee in New Jersey’s 12th District, the five are part of a group of incoming insurgents some have dubbed “the Bloc.” The group is preparing to work with established progressives, which could give the movement more leverage over legislation and party leadership.

Their arrival could expand the reach of the party’s left flank, which has spent years pushing Democratic leaders toward more aggressive policies on housing, healthcare, labor protections and taxing the wealthy.

Avila Chevalier, a grassroots organizer and immigration advocate, emphasized coordinating with the progressives already in Congress.

“I think it’s deeply important that we’re always coordinating and talking … and building our power as a movement,” she told MS NOW. She said lawmakers, including Ocasio-Cortez, had helped her understand the political landscape she could soon enter.

Kiros also expects to work with established progressives. But she said the newcomers would be operating in a different environment from the one that shaped the original Squad: Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., all elected in 2018.

“What will end up being different is really just going to be a product of the environments that we’re in,” Kiros told Politico. “The conditions that the Squad was operating in are very different from the conditions that we’re going to be operating in right now, and so we’re still going to be working together.”

In other words, the newcomers see themselves as extending an existing progressive movement, not competing with it.

Their relationship with the rest of the Democratic caucus could be more complicated, though Rabb cautioned against reading too much into the label. “I’m less concerned about labels and more concerned about progress and meaningful collaboration,” he said. “My litmus test is not what people who identify as democratic socialists want to do. It’s anyone who’s interested in transformative change.”

“You don’t have to be a leftist to believe that healthcare is a human right or that housing is a human right,” he said. “You don’t have to be a socialist to believe that the billionaire class is anathema to our democracy.”

Setzer argued that the ideological distance between democratic socialists and other Democrats is smaller than critics suggest. “It’s not that their policies are so different; it is a difference in degrees,” she said. She pointed to disagreements such as whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement should be abolished or significantly restructured.

Still, Democrats are also courting candidates with sharply different views. In Texas and Alaska, Democratic Senate candidates James Talarico and Mary Peltola have embraced oil and gas production. In Washington state, Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal, a progressive, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a moderate, have united against a ballot measure targeting transgender athletes, despite their differing records on LGBTQ issues.

That is the challenge awaiting democratic socialists in Congress. Their influence would grow inside a party whose coalition runs from outspoken left-wing activists to Democrats who break with progressive orthodoxy on issues ranging from energy policy to cultural debates.

The Jeffries question

If Democrats win control of the chamber, Jeffries would be in line for the speakership. That would put him at the center of negotiations over the party’s legislative agenda, committee assignments and internal divisions.

Asked whether they would back him, the five ranged from noncommittal to openly conditional.

When he spoke with MS NOW, Rabb said he had not talked with Jeffries. He said he wanted to meet with anyone seeking a House Democratic leadership post before deciding whom to support.

“I don’t reflexively give my support to anyone,” he said, adding that he needed to “understand why they’re running, how they seek to lead, and how that aligns with the priorities and concerns of the people who elected me.”

Avila Chevalier noted the historic significance of Jeffries potentially becoming the first Black speaker of the House, but said the milestone had to matter.

“I want it to mean something for New Yorkers that the speakership has come to New York,” she said. “And that has to translate into material impact in their lives.”

Her priorities include public housing funding, universal childcare and voting rights protections. She drew firmer lines when asked about supporting a spending bill containing provisions she opposed. “Funding for ICE is a no-go for me,” she said. She added that she also opposed additional weapons funding for Israel, which she believes would contribute to violations of international law.

Asked whether she would use her vote as leverage even at the risk of derailing the Democratic agenda, she didn’t go that far.

“I am someone who is always willing to work with my colleagues, but again, I answer to the people who elected me,” she said.

Valdez was noncommittal. “I’m not committed to voting yes or no,” she told MS NOW.

Kiros also repeatedly declined to commit to Jeffries, saying her vote would depend on the agenda he put forward. “I need to see the agenda. What am I actually voting for?” she told Politico. “These demands are coming directly from our voters.”

She said she would press the next speaker on Medicare for All, universal childcare, ending U.S. aid to Israel and withdrawing from the war with Iran. “If that is the goal of the next speaker, then I imagine those conversations should be fruitful,” she added.

In July, though, she told Axios she would not vote for any Democrat for a leadership position who takes money from corporate political action committees, a standard that would rule out Jeffries.

McKinney has also withheld his support. He told The Wall Street Journal last month that he and Jeffries had spoken by phone and planned to meet in person. “This is about receiving assurances that we can push legislation that our communities need,” McKinney told the Journal.

Apart from Kiros’ corporate-PAC standard, none of the five has said they would vote against Jeffries. But their positions show ways they could use the speaker vote to press for policy commitments, particularly if Democrats win only a narrow majority.

Setzer said the potential for friction should not be overstated, noting that former House speaker Nancy Pelosi also navigated disagreements with Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives. Ocasio-Cortez has since endorsed Jeffries for speaker, The Wall Street Journal reported.

In Setzer’s view, Jeffries could head off a rebellion by showing that he is willing to aggressively scrutinize the Trump administration.

“If there is a true effort by Jeffries to hold the Trump administration accountable, then I think it’s going to be a lot easier for him to make the argument to some of these incoming members that we’re all on the same side here,” she said. But she warned that a leadership strategy built around accommodating Republicans could produce the opposite result.

Republican strategist Evan Siegfried warned that public fights over leadership would give Republicans an opening to portray Democrats as divided and unable to govern.

“Full unity on everything. You can disagree in private, but in public, you are unified on whatever the issue is,” he told MS NOW, describing the approach he believes Democrats should take.

From the picket line to the House floor

For candidates whose political identities were shaped by activism, Congress could present a different kind of challenge. Organizers can mobilize supporters, build public pressure and demand sweeping change. Lawmakers must negotiate legislative language, navigate committees, round up votes and sometimes accept compromises that fall short of their goals.

But not all of the newcomers would be new to governing. Three have served in state legislatures, working inside the institutions they have also sought to change.

Rabb has spent a decade in Pennsylvania’s state House. He said he has worked there with Republicans as well as within an ideologically diverse Democratic caucus. “I basically sit down with anyone who wants to work in good faith to help with goals that we agree on,” he said. “That leaves a lot of room for collaboration with folks who may not share all of my priorities. But that’s OK. We have to find ways to engage people, but without compromising our values.”

McKinney, a Detroit Democrat elected to the Michigan House in 2022, previously worked as a legislative staffer and as a labor organizer with the Service Employees International Union. Valdez, a former union organizer, represents a western Queens Assembly district that includes parts of Long Island City, Sunnyside, Woodside, Maspeth and Ridgewood.

Their paths show how the movement has increasingly turned labor activism into electoral power, with candidates winning state office before setting their sights on Congress.

Avila Chevalier would arrive without that legislative experience. For her, the organizing that powered her campaign is the model for Congress. “All of organizing really is about bringing folks together,” she said. “There are no two people who agree on every single issue.” She added: “I see my role in Congress as very much about organizing people and bringing them on board into a shared vision.”

She said she would approach more moderate colleagues with a willingness to listen. “I always think coming in with some humility is important,” she said.

Ambitious goals, limited opportunities

Even with a Democratic House, the newcomers’ policy ambitions could collide with the realities of divided government. Most bills need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, and Trump would still have his veto.

Rabb drew a distinction between passing legislation in the House and getting it signed into law. He pointed to several measures he believes could advance under Democratic control, including the PRO Act, which would strengthen labor protections; the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act; the Block the Bombs Act; and legislation to raise the federal minimum wage.

But all of that, he acknowledged, depends on leadership. “No matter what my opinions or expertise, I don’t decide what bills get to the House floor,” Rabb said.

Avila Chevalier named two priorities she believes could make a tangible difference in her first term: more public housing funding and an expanded child tax credit. She also wants to advance Medicare for All. “I don’t know that we’ll pass it in this Congress, but I’m hopeful … that we’ll be able to make significant headway on it,” she said.

Kiros and McKinney have campaigned on similar themes, emphasizing economic insecurity and access to healthcare. Kiros has called for publicly supported housing development and a Green New Deal. McKinney has focused on affordability and the needs of working-class Detroiters.

Shared priorities could create room for collaboration. But agreeing on goals is not the same as agreeing on which fights to pick or how much compromise to accept.

For Setzer, the movement’s most consequential achievement may not be passing any one bill. It may be changing the Democratic caucus’ priorities, pushing the party toward a more aggressive approach to lowering costs and holding the Trump administration accountable.

But Siegfried warned that the pressure to show the voters who powered their campaigns that they’re keeping their promises could come at the expense of everyone else they represent.

“If you’re going out and you’re catering more toward virtue signaling and showing the base of your voters what you want to do and that you’re doing what you promise, as opposed to going out and representing all of your constituents, then that’s just more dysfunctional government and a problem,” he said.

The power of a few votes

Ultimately, the newcomers’ influence may come down to simple arithmetic: How many votes can Democrats afford to lose?

Suppose the House is fully seated and every member votes on a measure all Republicans oppose. A 218-seat Democratic majority could not lose a single vote. With 220 seats, Democrats could lose two and still prevail.

That math could turn a handful of new lawmakers from ideological outsiders into consequential players, and both wings of the party are already maneuvering. Progressives have met in Washington to map out a legislative agenda, while moderates are privately strategizing about how to counter the left. A larger contingent of democratic socialists would add another layer to those negotiations.

Republicans have lived through a version of this in recent years. Hard-line conservatives used their leverage in a narrow majority to force concessions from party leaders, and in 2023 they helped oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

But Setzer cautioned against assuming democratic socialists would become the Democrats’ answer to the House Freedom Caucus. Whether they challenge leadership, she argued, will likely depend on whether Jeffries embraces the priorities of the party’s base, particularly on oversight and accountability.

Rabb, for his part, argues that the movement’s reach shouldn’t be measured by its membership.

“There may be a handful of socialists in office,” he said, “but there’s a hell of a lot more people who believe in substantive change.”

The post ‘Nobody’s rubber stamp’: Democratic socialists prepare to test House leadership appeared first on MS NOW.

From MS Now.