Photograph Source: Morgan.rice.bassline.design – CC BY 4.0
The U.S. is witnessing a revival of “socialism.” A century ago, during the 1910s-1920s, more than 1,000 socialists were elected to public office, including two members of Congress, dozens of state legislators and more than 130 mayors.
Today, there are three “democratic socialists” in Congress – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and two in the House, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). Zohran Mamdani brought a spotlight to this development when he was elected mayor in New York City in 2025; other socialist mayors include Katie Wilson (Seattle) and Emma Mulvaney-Stanak (Montpelier, VT).
Rolling Stone and Wikipedia claim there are 250 elected officials affiliated with the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA). Still other groups – e.g., Working Families Party (WFP) and Green Party – are socialist all but in name.
According to the Washington Examiner, candidates endorsed by the DSA scored victories in 35 primary elections so far in 2026 including – in its words – “upsets against entrenched incumbents.” Going further, it notes: “The DSA has backed 150 candidates this cycle: 35 advanced from their primaries or were unopposed, while 34 have lost. Some of the wins include incumbents in federal or local government.”
Among these candidates are:
+ Christopher Rabb — re-elected to Pennsylvania House of Representatives District 200 in November 2024.
+ Claire Valdez — won in New York’s 7th Congressional District.
+ Darializa Avila Chevalier — unseated Rep. Adriano Espaillat in New York’s 13th District.
+ Brad Lander — beat incumbent Dan Goldman in the 10th District.
+ Abdul El-Sayed – won the Democratic nomination for Senate in Michigan.
+ Melat Kiros – defeated U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado’s 1st Congressional District.
+ Adam Bojak — won a three-way Democratic primary for the New York State Assembly in the Buffalo area.
+ Maurice “Mo” Brown — narrowly defeated Assemblyman William B. Magnarelli New York’s 129th state Assembly District.
+ Donavan McKinney – Michigan state representative (11th House District) is running for Congress.
+ Janeese Lewis George — is expected to win the mayoral race in Washington, DC.
+ Nithya Raman, a LA City Councilwomen – will challenge incumbent mayor Karen Bass for mayor.
The most noted defeat of a socialist was that of Francesca Hong who lost to David Crowley in the primary race for Wisconsin governor.
The rise of Socialism 2.0 in the U.S. speaks as much to the appeal of a more “socially” conscious democracy as it does to the faltering, old-money Democratic Party and Pres. Trump’s failures during his second term in office.
A September 2025 Gallup poll found two-thirds of Democrats (66%) had a favorable view of socialism while two-in-five (42%) had a “negative” image of it. Nearly 40 percent (38%) of “Independents” had a favorable view of socialism. Even more revealing, last year the libertarian Cato Institute reported 62 percent of Americans aged 18–29 say they hold a “favorable view” of socialism.
Further insight into the growing appeal of socialism is reflected in an August 1026 poll conducted by Navigator Research. It found:
+ Socialist Democrats skew younger, with 57% of them being between the ages of 18 and 44, while 48% of MAGA Republicans are aged 55 and up.
+ A plurality of Socialist Democrats have white-collar jobs (36%), while a plurality (34%) of MAGA Republicans have blue-collar jobs.
+ Both groups are majority white, however MAGA Republicans more so (86% of MAGA Republicans, 64% of Social Democrats). 26% and 17% of Socialist Democrats are Black and Latino, respectively.
+ A majority of MAGA Republicans are homeowners (55%), while a plurality of Social Democrats rent their homes (48%).
Clarifying its findings, Navigator noted:
Self-identified democratic socialists do not see socialism as being mutually exclusive and continue to identify with other terms on the left, including more mainstream Democratic labels. Of Socialist Democrats, 92% consider themselves to also be Democrats, 84% consider themselves to also be Obama Democrats, and 80% consider themselves to also be progressive.
Giving voice to this development, Ravi Mangla of the WFP insists, “It’s not folks looking for the leftmost option so much as looking for a candidate who’s gonna be on their side.” Adding, “It’s less about whether you are on the right or on the left so much as whether you are willing to punch up at the powerful.”
NYC’s Mamdani and Washington’s Lewis George, among others, are self-described “sewer socialists” who emphasize the need for responsive government services rather than critiques of market economics. In New York City, the “Commie Corridor” stretches through parts of the Northern Brooklyn to Western Queens and refers to young, leftist and college-age voters. As reported by the Gothamist,
The highest concentration of card-carrying democratic socialists lives in these neighborhoods, where the winning candidates appealed to voters struggling to keep up with rising rents and angry at politicians in both parties who are sending their taxpayer money to conflicts abroad.
The tendency toward America’s “Socialism 2.0” is not limited to New York and other radical progressives. On his Substack post on June 15, 2026, the economist Robert Reich identified Pres. Trump’s economic policies as “national socialism.” As he wrote, “Trump’s national socialism is concentrating ever more power in Trump’s hands. A whole new range of decisions is being made about the U.S. economy but without any congressional oversight or public knowledge.” Reich stresses that the Trump 2.0 regime has escalated federal investment in – and equity ownership of – traditionally private corporations.
Most revealing, White House reports – in an undated post — that total “U.S. and Foreign Investments” are $10.7 trillion to both independent countries (e.g., UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia) and private companies (e.g., Apple, Amazon, AT&T and many, many others). Arnab Datta, of Employ America, points out, “Not since the Great Depression has the government taken ownership stakes in private corporations at such scale and speed, and in this case, without explicit Congressional authorization.”
In addition to the federal investments, a slew of other indicators suggests the U.S.’s deepening “socialist” economy. These include the growing federalization of health care; according to the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), federal spending on health care totaled $1.8 trillion in 2025 and is projected to grow 63% by 2036 to $3.1 trillion. (Total military spending for 2025 is estimated at $916 billion.)
Compounding these developments, the Trump-led reactionary government (often with the passive support of establishment Democrats) has contributed to the country’s increasing income and wealth inequality; the St. Louis Federal Reserve estimates that the top 1 percent of American households control roughly 32 percent of the nation’s total wealth. And the richest 10 percent of American households now own over two-thirds of the nation’s total wealth.
The worst, long-term consequence of the Trump presidency will likely be the ever-greater environmental crisis that defines the global natural order. Climate change is getting worse every day and (almost) everyone is – or will be – suffering from it. Sadly, Trump and his super-rich billionaire “bros” will find ways to ignore or hide from this truth.
The current “socialist” critique of capitalism acknowledges the climate crisis and, increasingly, so do some more conservative observers. John Mac Ghlionn, a conservative writer, posed a radical critique of Trump’s policies in The Hill. He wrote that during Trump’s first term, “he vowed to ‘drain the swamp,’ revive American industry, tame debt, rebuild trust, and restore pride.” He adds, “The second time, he [Trump] returned with a sharper edge and a louder voice, insisting that only he could finish the job he claimed had been sabotaged the first time around.”
Mac Ghlionn acknowledges the deeper truth of Trump’s presidency: “He was the messenger. The problem is that America no longer has the political, economic or cultural capacity to deliver restoration at all.” And he adds: “You can’t restore a mid-century industrial base in a post-industrial economy with a single leader. You can’t rebuild trust through permanent outrage. You can’t borrow your way back to greatness.”
Going further, Mac Ghlionn warns the U.S. “is settling into managed decline. Each generation inherits a narrower set of possibilities. Boomers dreamed big. Gen X sought security. Millennials adjusted to constraint. Gen Z dreams of not becoming homeless.”
Today’s growing socialist movement acknowledges this decline. It does not identify with Russia, let alone China or the old Soviet Communism, as 21st century American socialism. However, many don’t share a clear alternative conception of what socialism means. Rather, it’s a philosophy as well as a movement in formation.
So far, the U.S.’s socialism 2.0 is a bottom-up popular movement, not a top-down party system. While sharing many of the same values – e.g., affordability, climate change, end foreign wars – individual socialist-identified candidates (as suggested by the outcome of the 2026 primaries) as well as local grass-roots activities offer differing analyses. These differences add voice and vitality of a growing movement.
