Prefer us on Google
Nov 13 2026 - 6:30pm
Is the Democrats’ Tea Party moment finally here? Yesterday, Senator Chris Van Hollen formally announced his challenge to Chuck Schumer’s decade-long grip on party leadership.
After Van Hollen’s announcement on MSNOW, Schumer posted on X: “I welcome any discussion about the future of our caucus and the important work ahead. I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished together — 55 seats and counting is an amazing result — and I have the votes to continue serving as Democratic Leader.”
According to Drop Site’s whip count, it’s far from clear that Schumer has the votes. What is abundantly clear, however, is that his Left-wing opponents now have leverage. Kevin McCarthy only secured the Republican speakership after giving away enormous power to the Freedom Caucus — so much so that a concession to populists on the “motion to vacate” ultimately enabled his downfall.
For what it’s worth, Hakeem Jeffries is also under fire on the House side and could face a challenge from Ayanna Pressley. Democrats in both chambers would be unwise to surrender their leverage by failing to mount an alternative bid. Even if they fall short, making Schumer and Jeffries sweat should at least force them to offer some concessions to progressives — something their base is clearly demanding.
Despite Van Hollen’s longtime alliance with Nancy Pelosi, he burnished his progressive bona fides during Trump 2.0 by flying to El Salvador and meeting with Kilmar Abrego Garcia. From there, the Maryland senator visited the West Bank and became a sharp critic of the Netanyahu government. Less than a year after his trip, Van Hollen argued in the New York Times that “Israel has used its strength not only as a shield, but also as a sword to bury the two-state solution and advance the far-Right’s vision of a ‘Greater Israel.’”
Speaking with Politico on Wednesday, Joseph Geevarghese of the progressive group Our Revolution put it this way: “Van Hollen represents a bridge between the old guard — people who’ve been in office for a long time with a more moderate orientation — and the new generation that is coming into office.”
But Van Hollen is not just a “moderate” with a progressive temperament. Politico also noted the senator’s evolution, writing: “Over the past two years, he has emerged as an increasingly strident critic of the Democratic party establishment and its approach to President Donald Trump, as well as its positions on populist economic policies and the U.S. relationship with Israel.”
This explains why Van Hollen has credibility as a “bridge figure” — and why Schumer so conspicuously does not. In April, arch-centrist Elissa Slotkin accurately characterized the new dynamic: “We used to talk about, are you a progressive or are you a moderate? That’s not the debate anymore. It’s fight or flight”. Notably, Slotkin now appears to be campaigning against Schumer and supporting Van Hollen.
When you’ve lost Elissa Slotkin, you’ve lost your grip on the caucus. Democrats’ new senators from red and swing states are also opposed to Schumer, including Annie Andrews, Adam Hamilton and Scott Colom. Star freshman Abdul El-Sayed actually floated Van Hollen for leader months ago.
The political incentives suggest Schumer really might not have the votes. Democrats looking around the country at shocking red-seat upsets and double-digit wins in Trump Country understand people are deeply unhappy with the political establishment. The blue tsunami came despite Schumer supporting uninspiring centrist candidates who lost primaries in places such as Maine and Michigan. Meanwhile success stories including Andrews, El-Sayed, and James Talarico clearly changed tack from Democrats’ earlier efforts to make inroads with the MAGA coalition.
Schumer does not have the votes right now. He could strong-arm the caucus and cough just enough up to keep his power, but even that won’t come without a price. Whether he’s accepted it or not, Schumer is no longer in charge.
