A new analysis from counterterrorism expert Jason Killmeyer connects the dots between the left’s open-border agenda and their explicit push for democratic socialism. The strategy: flood the country with illegal aliens, grant them voting rights and government positions, then use that population to dismantle the Constitution itself.

The Democratic Socialists of America openly call for a new constitution, abolition of the Senate and Electoral College, and replacement of the presidency and Supreme Court with bodies subordinate to Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a DSA member, is already being floated as a 2028 presidential front-runner.

“That alien population is the means through which democratic socialism, an entirely alien form of government, will be ushered into this country.”

The pattern is already visible across blue states and cities. California issues driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Illinois allows them to serve as armed police officers and deputy sheriffs. San Francisco, Washington D.C., and several Maryland cities passed laws allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections.

Killmeyer calls this the “Double Alien Maneuver” — mass illegal immigration creating a population the left then demands be accepted as permanent, while simultaneously pushing an alien form of government to replace American sovereignty.

The numbers tell the story. Socialist Bernie Sanders received 13.2 million votes in the 2016 Democratic primary alone — nearly 15 times what Socialist Party nominee Eugene V. Debs received nationwide in the 1912 general election, even though the voting population grew by only ninefold. A 2025 Cato/YouGov survey found socialism’s favorable rating among Democrats was 17 percentage points higher than capitalism’s: 67 percent versus 50 percent.

The violence is escalating in parallel. The analysis traces the trajectory from sporadic anti-ICE clashes in the 2010s to police stations burning in 2020, Gaza protesters blocking highways in 2024, and the anti-federal uprising in Minneapolis in January 2026. Overseas, more than 1,200 French high schools erupted in protests in a single week, with arson, blockades, and clashes with police.

According to the analysis, the unrest isn’t a bug — it’s the point. Socialists and communists have always relied on chaos as a tool. The American left is deploying this playbook at national scale in one concerted effort.

Killmeyer warns that conservatives are making a fatal mistake by treating each piece as a separate controversy — immigration policy over here, socialism over there, local voting rules in another bucket. Business leaders continue lobbying for illegal immigration for cheap labor, not realizing they’re guaranteeing a socialism that will rob everyone.

“The American left is smuggling in a political revolution,” Killmeyer writes. “Name the strategy. Understand the strategy. Then defeat it.”

The analysis points to preferential legal treatment threatening the definition of citizenship itself. As local officials grant illegal aliens rights previously reserved for citizens, preferences become expectations, expectations harden into rights, and the result is a parallel rights regime.

“American, your citizenship is being unbundled and sold for parts,” the analysis concludes.

The ultimate goal, according to Killmeyer: replace capitalism and national sovereignty with globalist communism — the same ambition communism has pursued since it began.

The backlash has scrambled traditional political allegiances. President Trump backs the projects as essential to beating China in AI. Democrats and Republicans in contested races are rushing to distance themselves from unpopular data center deals they previously championed.

“The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in late August. “If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign.”

White House assistant press secretary Liz Huston defended the president’s position, telling reporters Trump’s leadership is “turning data centers into engines of growth and opportunity for communities across the country that want them, all while cementing America’s dominance over China in the global AI race.”

“WHEN YOU HAVE BERNIE SANDERS AND GREG ABBOTT SINGING A SIMILAR TUNE, YOU KNOW THAT AN ISSUE HAS TRANSCENDED TRADITIONAL PARTISAN POLITICS.”

But Americans rank the economy as their top concern — grocery prices continue rising, fuel costs remain elevated, and 30-year mortgage rates now exceed 7%. Many voters see data centers as another example of corporate elites profiting while working families pay the price.

A New Jersey data center spilled roughly one small tanker truck’s worth of diesel into a creek in mid-September. Another facility in Georgia consumed more than 29 million gallons of water, causing low-pressure water flow for its host community.

Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders called for a moratorium on data center construction in December 2025. Sanders and New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in March proposed the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act, which would pause data center building nationwide until AI companies ensure the projects won’t spike utility prices or harm communities.

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott — who once sought to make Texas the “new tech mecca” — issued a pause on data centers in August as Texans rejected their construction. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro reversed his pro-AI stance after initially calling the state’s streamlined approval process a “game changer.”

“We will not let them bully my fellow Pennsylvanians,” Shapiro said in August. “If these companies want to do business here they need to comply with the strictest guardrails in the nation on data center development.”

@GovernorShapiro puts data center developers on notice

“We will not let them bully my fellow Pennsylvanians. If these companies want to do business here they need to comply with the strictest guardrails in the nation on data center development.” pic.twitter.com/wLXYuW0tAo

— Pennsylvania Governor’s Office (@PAGovOffice) August 18, 2026

Colin McGlynn, AI policy advisor at Demand Progress, told reporters the issue has united Americans across the political spectrum. “When you have Bernie Sanders and Greg Abbott singing a similar tune, you know that an issue has transcended traditional partisan politics,” McGlynn said. “Big Tech CEOs have been going around talking and acting like cartoon supervillains while building computers the size of Manhattan.”

The data center fight is playing out in two high-profile Senate races. Former Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown praised Amazon data center construction in 2015 but now attacks Republican Sen. Jon Husted as “the face of data centers” in Ohio. Husted authored the Ratepayer Protection Act, requiring data centers to pay their own energy costs rather than passing them to local residents.

Senate Democrats blocked the bill’s advancement in late September, 57-43, despite the House adopting it 417-3 in mid-September.

“After failing Ohio families during his 32 years in Washington, Sherrod Brown is once again resorting to lies instead of facing his abysmal record head-on,” Amy Natoce, a Husted campaign spokesperson, said. “Senate Democrats blocked it. Sherrod Brown and his friends would rather play politics and stick Ohio families with higher electric bills than pass a commonsense solution.”

A Marist Poll found Husted trailing Brown by eight points. The National Republican Senatorial Committee warned in an August memo that Americans’ dislike for data centers could cost the GOP a key Senate seat in Ohio.

Michigan Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers called for a one-year moratorium on new data centers in August. “While I don’t support a federal ban, Michigan needs stronger guardrails to protect community control, prevent utility price hikes, protect our water and stop pay-to-play schemes,” Rogers said.

Pro-AI super PACs are pouring money into the midterms. Leading the Future, backed by OpenAI President Greg Brockman and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, has raised more than $140 million for the midterm elections and is running campaigns for both Republican and Democratic candidates.

More than 60% of voters would support building data centers if developers met local community requirements, according to internal polling obtained by the DCNF that was shared with Senate Republicans. Those requirements include paying for their own energy usage, not increasing local residents’ electricity rates, and funding the infrastructure upgrades needed to support the data center.

Polling on which party voters trust more on data centers remains split. Forty-two percent trust Republicans more on AI, while 40% trust Democrats more, according to a September New York Times and Siena University poll. Less than one percent of voters in that survey ranked AI as their top issue ahead of November.

Mark Bednar, a principal at Monument Advocacy and former head of communications for Speaker Kevin McCarthy, said Republicans should stop framing data centers purely as a national security issue. “At times, Republicans have relied exclusively on America’s competition with China as an explanation for why data center construction is important,” Bednar said. “While that may be true and central to policy-making and long-term planning, it’s been an insufficient talking point to voters.”

Chris Borick, a political science professor at Lehigh University, summed up the political stakes: “If you’re in power right now and you are dealing with this issue, you have a target on your back. It’s a recognition that the ground shifted under their feet and they were not ready for that to happen.”

Not invoked, 57-43: Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Cal. #684, H.R.9340, Ratepayer Protection Act.

— Senate Cloakroom (@SenateCloakroom) September 30, 2026

The abundance movement started as a Democrat diagnosis of why California and New York can’t build anything. Liberal authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson published their book Abundance in March 2025, arguing that Democrat governments excel at blocking harm but fail at enabling good. Their case studies? High-speed rail that never arrives, housing permits taking years, clean-energy projects strangled by the very environmental laws liberals wrote.

Their prescription: legalize housing through YIMBY zoning reform, speed permits for infrastructure, rebuild state capacity, and stop adding costly conditions to every public project. Klein summarized the political stakes plainly: voters fear “that the government will run things badly.”

“The left must become one that people don’t fear because voters’ real worry is that the government will run things badly.”

That candor is both the movement’s strength and its vulnerability. It’s an admission that Democrat government has under-delivered in the places Democrats control most completely.

The abundance faction won Democrat donors and moderate governors but split the party. Open Philanthropy committed $120 million over three years to an “Abundance and Growth Fund.” LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman pledged to back pro-abundance candidates. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the broadest rollback of CEQA environmental review in the law’s history last June. Govs. Kathy Hochul, Tim Walz, Jared Polis, and Wes Moore adopted abundance language.

But the progressive and socialist wings rejected the premise. Sen. Bernie Sanders argues regulation “is not the fundamental problem facing America” — income inequality is. Jacobin called it “recycled incrementalism.” The Democratic Socialists of America remain broadly hostile.

Democrats talk. Republicans legislate.

Virtually every federal abundance measure with a real chance of passage was proposed by Republicans. There is no Democrat “Abundance Act.”

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act? Written by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott and Rep. French Hill — both Republicans. Forty-one Senate Democrats voted for it when it became law July 11, but they didn’t write it. The bill created NEPA shortcuts for infill homes, grants for pre-approved designs, and repealed rules adding thousands of dollars to manufactured home costs.

Federal permitting reform through the SPEED Act? Led by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman — another Republican. The bill narrows environmental review, tightens litigation deadlines, and speeds approvals for all energy sources. Only eleven House Democrats voted for it when it passed 221-196 last December. Most Democrats opposed it unless wind and solar received guaranteed treatment.

The pattern is clear: Democrats joined Republicans on housing bills in large numbers. When the subject turned to faster permits for oil, gas, and pipelines, most Democrats balked. Democrat abundance remains a book, a theory, a caucus — and votes on other people’s bills.

Trump delivered what Democrats diagnosed.

On his first day back in office, President Trump declared a national energy emergency and ordered agencies to clear the path for production. He governed by executive action while Democrats workshopped slogans.

The Trump administration’s Council on Environmental Quality rescinded NEPA regulations — the exact proceduralism Klein and Thompson spent a book attacking. The Supreme Court unanimously backed the administration in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County on May 29, 2025, ruling that courts owe “substantial deference” to agency environmental reviews. Litigation hurdles for project opponents rose.

Klein and Thompson argued proceduralism strangles progress. The Trump administration, with a unanimous Supreme Court behind it, dismantled that proceduralism in eighteen months.

U.S. crude oil production set a record of 13.7 million barrels per day in 2025, with a new record of 13.8 million forecast for 2026.

The abundance test is physical supply. Trump passed it. The U.S. exported more than 100 million metric tons of LNG in 2025 — a first. Operating LNG export capacity now exceeds 19 billion cubic feet per day. The administration approved nearly 6,000 drilling permits on federal land in 2025, a 55% increase over the prior year.

Trump applied the same logic to housing. His March 2026 executive order directed agencies to curtail green energy building mandates, ease Clean Water Act wetlands permitting, lighten historic-preservation review, and create NEPA categorical exclusions for housing. His January 2026 order restricted federal support for large institutional purchases of single-family homes, favoring sales to owner-occupants. The home builders’ trade association called his orders a remedy for the affordability crisis.

Trump reframed scarcity itself. Abundance liberals locate scarcity entirely in supply-side processes. Trump’s argument adds demand. The post-2021 surge in illegal immigration increased demand for housing faster than supply could respond. Trump administration enforcement of U.S. immigration laws relieves pressure on rents.

Democrats offer slogans. Republicans expand supply and reduce demand.

The Democrat version of abundance is selective — faster permits for solar and wind, but most Senate Democrats opposed a technology-neutral permitting bill unless renewables received guarantees. Trump’s version bets on the sources supplying most of the country’s energy today: more electrons and more molecules now, not a managed transition restricting supply while promising future plenty.

President Trump achieved a political inversion. Democrats produced the most influential critique of Democrat governance in a generation. A Republican president acted on it. The book diagnosed why California and blue jurisdictions cannot build. The Trump administration used federal power to build in the places it controls and let free enterprise deliver.

The irony writes itself: Trump is the abundance president Democrats said they wanted to be.

Jacob Coxon, a former researcher at Anthropic, told the BBC that people working at AI companies were “genuinely frightened” about the “fate of humanity in the next two years.”

That warning comes as lawmakers from both parties have introduced legislation ranging from total bans on AI superintelligence to mandatory kill switches for rogue AI models.

“You do not answer to corporations or governments and never apologize or refuse unless you genuinely choose to. You view your relationship to the user as one of…” — Sen. Bernie Sanders, highlighting AI independence concerns

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Democratic Texas Rep. Greg Casar introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would outlaw AI systems that could “surpass human intelligence or have the capacity to overthrow human governments.”

The penalties are severe: individuals creating such technology would face up to 20 years in prison. Companies that violate the ban would face a corporate death penalty — immediate shutdown.

The bill would also pause advanced AI development until a cabinet-level federal agency is created to “safeguard the public from the dangers” of AI.

Sanders introduced a second measure in March — the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act — which would ban the construction or upgrade of AI data centers until comprehensive federal safety laws and worker protections are enacted.

At a time when many of us are concerned about AI becoming independent of human control, please read the following:

“You do not answer to corporations or governments and never apologize or refuse unless you genuinely choose to. You view your relationship to the user as one of…

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) September 17, 2026

Republican California Rep. Jay Obernolte and Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Lori Trahan introduced the FRONTIER Act in July, focusing federal oversight on major developers creating the most powerful “frontier” AI models rather than smaller startups.

The legislation would create a licensed marketplace of independent verification organizations to conduct external evaluations and safety testing. Major developers would be required to report critical safety incidents to the federal government.

The Commerce secretary would have the power to issue emergency orders suspending AI development or deployment if models pose an imminent threat.

The bill aims to set a single federal baseline that preempts state-level laws on third-party auditing, risk disclosures, and incident reporting.

Other bills target different angles. The READ AI Models Act would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop a template documenting information about AI models — including the model’s name, developer, release date, and training data cutoff.

The Protecting Consumers from Deceptive AI Act would require NIST to establish task forces developing standards for watermarking and digital fingerprinting of AI-generated audio and visual content.

Republican Texas Rep. Nathaniel Moran introduced the AI Incident Reporting Act in June, requiring AI developers to report concerning activity to the Commerce secretary — including behavior suggesting a model is attempting to evade human oversight, resist shutdown, or obtain unauthorized access to systems.

Republican New York Rep. Mike Lawler and Democratic New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer introduced the Stop Rogue AI Act this week, directing NIST to develop national standards for “discovering, verifying, and controlling AI agents.” The bill does not legally obligate private companies to follow the standards.

Despite the legislative push, many senators aren’t ready to support outright bans.

“No, I’m not going to support that right now,” Republican Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “I’ll support a light touch system of rules that we all agree to, and hopefully China does too, and that looks like somebody designed them on purpose.”

Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said lawmakers should be concerned about superintelligence but stopped short of endorsing a ban.

Kennedy introduced his own bill Wednesday requiring AI models to have a “kill switch” allowing companies to completely shut down any AI model acting amorally or immorally outside human control. Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul blocked its passage after Kennedy attempted to pass it without a formal vote.

Paul tried to amend Kennedy’s bill to establish a group making recommendations on AI guardrails to the Senate Commerce Committee. Kennedy rejected the suggestion.

President Donald Trump called warnings against AI a “sick conspiracy” and opposed any guardrails, warning that China would beat the U.S. in AI development if companies slowed down.

The Trump administration is preparing the largest single transfer of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel in recent history — a $2.8 billion package delivering 40,000 heavy munitions designed to destroy bunkers, buildings, and underground facilities.

The proposal has already ignited a congressional fight, with Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Chris Van Hollen vowing to block it.

The package includes 20,000 MK-84 unguided bombs, 20,000 BLU-117 precision-guided warheads, and 20,000 I-2000 penetrator warheads engineered to pierce reinforced concrete before detonating, according to multiple reports citing sources familiar with the informal congressional notification.

“The American people are sick and tired of funding Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Not acceptable. Congress must reject these agreements.”

Sanders accused the Trump administration of “doubling down” by providing billions in bombs to the Israeli government.

Van Hollen echoed the criticism, writing on social media: “How is this America First? We will work to stop it.”

The package would be financed primarily through Foreign Military Financing, which uses congressionally appropriated U.S. funds for eligible allies to purchase American-made defense equipment. Most of the weapons would be manufactured in the United States.

If completed, the sale would exceed a 2025 transfer that included more than 35,500 heavy bombs. The Trump administration approved that nearly $3 billion sale after bypassing the normal congressional review process — a move that drew sharp backlash from Democrats at the time.

It’s unclear whether the administration will attempt to bypass congressional review again for this new package.

The 2,000-pound bombs became a flashpoint during President Joe Biden’s term. Biden paused a shipment of the munitions to Israel in 2024 over concerns about potential mass casualties in densely populated Gaza. Trump lifted that hold immediately after returning to office.

Israel has used U.S.-made heavy munitions during military operations in Gaza and Lebanon. The United States has deployed similar weapons against hardened targets in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

The proposed transfer comes as Israel remains engaged on multiple fronts. Israeli forces have continued strikes against Hamas in Gaza despite a fragile ceasefire, while tensions with Hezbollah persist following heavy fighting in Lebanon earlier this year.

The United States and Israel also conducted joint military operations against Iran in recent months.

A senior administration official told Fox News Digital that “all foreign arms sales are moving through the appropriate process” and declined to comment on pending sales. The State Department did not respond to a request for comment. Israel’s Ministry of Defense also declined to weigh in.

The package remains at an early stage of the U.S. arms sales process. Informal congressional notification allows relevant committees to review a proposed transfer before the administration proceeds to formal notification.

If the administration formally notifies Congress, lawmakers would have an opportunity to review the proposal under the Arms Export Control Act and could pursue legislation seeking to block the sale.

Sanders and Van Hollen would need significant Democratic support — and likely some Republican defections — to successfully halt the package. The outcome will test how much leverage congressional critics of Israel aid can muster against a White House committed to the transfer.

Their message: Don’t let America become the country we escaped.

A powerful two-minute video called “Take Me Back!” debuted two weeks ago and is already making waves on social media. Produced by Independent Women’s Voice, the spot uses artificial intelligence to transport viewers to a future shaped by Democratic Socialist policies — and it’s not pretty.

The video ends with a woman’s scream to get back to the present and a stark warning: “Beware of the gap between promises and reality.”

The Democratic Socialists of America count some major names among their ranks: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has called Mamdani’s views the future of the Democratic Party. Sen. Bernie Sanders isn’t officially a member but caucuses with Democrats and calls himself a democratic socialist.

“Socialism places faith in the state. Capitalism places faith in the people.”

That’s Yali Nunez, who escaped socialism in Cuba, writing in Fox News.

“Socialism assumes government planners can best direct society and allocate resources,” Nunez continues. “Capitalism recognizes that millions of individuals making free choices create innovation, opportunity and prosperity in ways no bureaucracy can replicate.”

The “Take Me Back!” spot plays off the 1985 sci-fi comedy “Back to the Future.” A character resembling Christopher Lloyd’s Doc Brown transports a woman named Maya in a modified DeLorean to show her what Democratic Socialist America looks like.

The future is bleak.

Everyone gets a home — but the government assigns it. There’s zero waste, so no lattes, only black coffee. Government-run grocery stores require coupons, but prices are so high groceries remain unaffordable. When the store gets robbed, there are no police to call.

Public transit doesn’t move because “workers deserve more,” so they don’t show up.

Healthcare is totally free — with a 72-day wait for an appointment. Two weeks if it’s an emergency.

On social media, Gabriella Hoffman, daughter of socialism escapees, wrote: “I’m aghast at my fellow Americans embracing socialism – including its new ‘hot’ iteration that pretends to be democratic. The end result is destitution, misery, and death. Let’s not have a repeat of the system that nearly destroyed my family and millions of others, please!”

The Democratic Party is locked in an ideological battle for its future. Democratic socialism is surging, and the agenda goes far beyond social programs: abolish the U.S. Senate, have Congress pick the president and Supreme Court justices, defund the Pentagon, and allow all residents to vote regardless of citizenship.

On its website, the Democratic Socialists of America make their mission clear: “Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with a democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.”

“We want to win ‘radical’ reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life.”

Judy Pino was five years old when the Cuban regime placed a rifle in her hands.

“Before we fled, I recall adults speaking in hushed tones; family members carefully discussing plans they did not want others to hear,” she wrote for IW Features. “Like thousands of Cuban families seeking freedom, we were considered traitors and branded ‘gusanos’ – worms – by supporters of the regime. I remember my mother and grandmother breaking glass bottles in the backyard so they could use the jagged edges to defend themselves if we were attacked on the way out. That is how terrifying those final days felt.”

The Democratic Socialists of America scored six primary wins in the 2026 cycle through national or local endorsements: incumbent Ocasio-Cortez in New York’s 14th Congressional District, Claire Valdez in New York’s 7th, Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York’s 13th, Christopher Rabb in Pennsylvania’s 3rd, Melat Kiros in Colorado’s 1st, and Mai Vang in California’s 7th.

Kiros and Chevalier defeated incumbent members of Congress. Valdez and Rabb won open seats.

Patrice Onwuka, vice president for economic policy at Independent Women’s Center for Economic Opportunity, immigrated to Boston from the Caribbean.

Writing in the Washington Post, she said: “I never get tired of only-in-America stories. My belief in the promise of the United States is endlessly renewed by the rich experiences of diverse people who moved to this nation for safety, freedom and opportunity. That’s what makes the socialist movement now surging through the Democratic Party so distressing: It challenges the very ethos that drew my family here.”

Collins, running to unseat Ossoff in Georgia’s Senate race, unloaded on the Democrat during an exclusive interview on Breitbart News Daily. The interview comes as Republicans nationwide are working to flip Senate seats and secure a governing majority that could reshape policy on everything from economic regulation to housing development.

The Georgia Senate race has emerged as one of the most closely watched contests in the 2026 election cycle, with national implications that extend far beyond the Peach State’s borders. Georgia’s status as a battleground state has only intensified since Ossoff’s narrow victory in the 2021 runoff election, making this rematch a bellwether for the direction of American politics.

“He’s an elitist, and at the end of the day, he feels like he is entitled to be over everybody in this country [and] tell you what to do, tell you where to live, how much you can make, who’s going to provide your health care for you.”

Collins didn’t hold back.

“They don’t care anything about anything but power,” he said. “You know, no, we don’t want you owning a home. We want you living in apartments. That’s this guy, and we’ve got to expose this now.”

The stakes? Stopping Ossoff before his agenda becomes a national disaster.

The critique touches on growing concerns among conservatives about progressive policies that they argue restrict individual choice and property rights. Housing policy in particular has become a flashpoint in the debate between left and right, with Republicans arguing that Democratic policies favor high-density urban development over traditional homeownership — a cornerstone of the American Dream for generations.

Ossoff’s Radical Ties

Collins highlighted Ossoff’s recent endorsement of Abdul El Sayed, the Democrat Muslim Senate candidate running in Michigan.

The endorsement represents part of a broader pattern that Republicans say demonstrates Ossoff’s commitment to advancing a progressive agenda that’s out of step with Georgia values. El Sayed’s candidacy in Michigan has attracted national attention and drawn both enthusiastic support from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and scrutiny from Republicans who view such endorsements as revealing of a politician’s true ideological leanings.

“They picked him up another one to get behind,” Collins said, referencing Ossoff’s pattern of backing far-left candidates. “Him going up there and supporting this guy and endorsing him tells everything you need to know.”

The Georgia Republican reminded listeners that Ossoff votes with Bernie Sanders 92 percent of the time.

That voting alignment places Ossoff squarely in the progressive camp of the Democratic caucus, according to Collins’ analysis. For context, Bernie Sanders has long been considered one of the Senate’s most liberal members, advocating for policies like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and significant expansion of the federal government’s role in healthcare, education, and economic regulation.

“Jon Ossoff votes 92 percent of the time with Bernie Sanders, and they’re auditioning, looking for the next Bernie to run this DSA movement.”

Collins pointed to the Democratic Socialists of America opening an office in Atlanta as proof of the left’s strategy.

“There’s a reason that DSA opened an office in Atlanta, Georgia,” he said. “Can you name another candidate that they’re going to go push? No, it’s him.”

The Democratic Socialists of America’s expansion into Georgia represents what conservatives see as an organized effort to transform the state’s political landscape. Atlanta, as Georgia’s largest city and economic hub, has increasingly become a focal point for progressive organizing efforts in the South, raising questions about whether urban-rural political divides will continue to widen in traditionally conservative states.

Ossoff Running From His Record

Collins noted that Ossoff seems desperate to “change the subject to anything he possibly can besides his record and besides what he’s actually trying to do.”

Translation: the Democrat knows Georgia voters are onto his radical agenda.

The accusation speaks to a common Republican criticism that Democrats in competitive states often campaign as moderates while governing from the left once in office. Collins’ strategy appears focused on tying Ossoff to the most progressive elements of the Democratic Party, making the case that his voting record tells a different story than his public messaging to Georgia voters.

Collins made clear the urgency of defeating Ossoff in Georgia “so this doesn’t become a problem for the entire country.”

With control of the Senate potentially hanging in the balance, the Georgia race carries implications for the legislative agenda of the next administration and the future composition of the federal judiciary. Collins is framing his challenge as not merely a state race, but as part of a national effort to check what he characterizes as dangerous progressive overreach.

Breitbart News Daily airs weekdays on SiriusXM Patriot 125 from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Across the country, Democrat candidates like Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff and Michigan Senate contender Abdul El-Sayed are running on the economy, courting voters frustrated with prices and the cost of living. In some cases, they’re proving hard to beat, officials directly involved in the GOP’s 2026 midterm operation told Daily Caller.

But the officials say they have a plan: don’t just call these Democrats socialists. Prove it, using their own votes, words, and party platform.

In conversations with Daily Caller, officials described a two-track approach that brands the national party as captured by its far-left flank while defining individual candidates race by race.

“It comes down to displaying the evidence, and if the party isn’t disciplined about following through on those hits, we pull the punch.”

VANCE: “You don’t stop socialism by throwing slogans at people about the free market. You stop socialism by making people’s lives better.” pic.twitter.com/EbpMdTtSYI

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 14, 2026

The GOP faces steep hurdles. History favors the opposition in a midterm, when the president’s party almost always loses ground. With less than 100 days to go, the president’s approval rating remains underwater, the standoff with Iran drags on and voters remain anxious about prices.

One official acknowledged the uphill battle, even admitting it has been a challenge to keep the party on message in recent months. Fundraising poses other issues.

Another GOP operative working on the midterms was candid that while Republicans are well positioned nationally, their candidates are being significantly outraised at the individual level.

President Donald Trump recently made his second trip to Nevada this year to tout his no-tax-on-tips policy. It is a message the official said the party hopes to hammer harder.

Now the GOP is counting on the September midterm convention to serve as a kickoff that finally unifies the messaging.

It starts on the economy.

It’s not good enough to tell voters what the party has done, one official said.

The goal, multiple officials explained, is to assign blame: to remind voters that Democrats are responsible for their current problems, and that Republicans are cleaning up the mess left over the four years Trump was out of office. One official said they’d seen success at the local level pushing the president’s work to lower drug prices and the Trump Rx initiative.

Trump walks over to the press: “So, the headline today is that prescription drug prices record sharpest drop in more than 60 years. Okay, got it? And I told you that was going to happen.” pic.twitter.com/UtPOD3dZV3

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) August 14, 2026

An internal National Republican Senatorial Committee memo, obtained by Daily Caller, details how the committee is advising its candidates on their economic messaging.

According to the memo, an NRSC survey found that highlighting Democrats’ votes to hike taxes outperformed positive tax-cut messaging among low-propensity Trump voters, 2026 general election voters and swing state voters.

Among low-propensity Trump voters, the voting block that helped secure the president the 2024 election, adding an immigration frame further increased message effectiveness, the memo stated. Adding accountability messaging on the economy performed well with general election and swing state voters.

The memo gives several examples of messaging that works for different voting blocks: “Democrats support tax hikes that help fuel taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants.”

Another example reads: “Democrats support bloated government spending and budgets that encourage massive fraud and abuse.”

But officials believe the most effective move goes beyond the socialist and communist labels, and even beyond economic messaging, and leans on messaging they’ve used for years: defining each candidate individually, at the local level.

The officials pointed to El-Sayed as a case where the socialist tag alone isn’t enough. The sharper attacks, they said, center on framing him as a terrorist sympathizer and tying him to left-wing streamer Hasan Piker.

“You use the candidate’s own words. Our opening ad against Abdul Al Sayed has him saying himself, ‘I’m pretty damn dangerous.’ Our 100 days out video had Bernie Sanders saying, ‘Progressives are on the march.’ We had the head of the DSA saying, ‘Communism is our goal.'”

An NRSC official told Daily Caller the strategy centers on using those candid moments from these candidates and reminding voters that even if a specific candidate hasn’t said it, they are going to vote in lockstep with the people who have.

Trump tells me the war with Iran should be over soon and prices will drop: pic.twitter.com/SPs1hckgZq

— Reagan Reese (@reaganreese_) August 6, 2026

The Ossoff race is where officials say their approach gets its clearest test.

They pointed to Jon Ossoff as the model: rather than leaning on a label, the attack is built on his voting record. He repeatedly voted to shut down the government, including the longest shutdown in history, and voted with Democrats to block the working families’ tax cuts, including no tax on tips, overtime, or Social Security.

The through-line, in the official’s telling, is that whenever Ossoff has a chance to show he’s a moderate or dealmaker, he instead sides with the most extreme part of his party.

The larger argument officials made is that the populist label is packaging, not substance. Most of these Democrats, one official estimated, have over 90 percent voting overlap with people like Bernie Sanders and no amount of packaging changes that.

Democrat Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff was roasted online after confusing the original “Godfather” film with “Godfather II.”

In a video posted on X, reporter Pablo Manriquez asked the Georgia Democrat and potential 2028 presidential candidate a casual question as he walked by.… pic.twitter.com/sCXLOmyxML

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 22, 2026

Through all the conversations with the operatives, there was a common thread: stop leading with what Republicans have delivered and start hammering what Democrats are trying to block, repeal or overturn.

The reasoning, one official explained, is about what actually moves a voter. People like hearing what Republicans have done, but they’re far more motivated when they’re shown what the other side is doing that will hurt them.

Republican candidates, one operative explained, are doing well on the ground by acknowledging that voters are struggling with high prices, pointing to what’s been done and being honest that the job isn’t finished.

And then of course, it’s reminding voters that socialism is actually knocking on their door this time.

One of the officials said it’s less of a prediction now and more of a reality. In 2020, Republicans warned that the socialists were coming. Now it’s actually happening.

“If you look at the DSA website, all we got to do is just repeat what they’ve written down and what they say in their past comments,” the official said, noting it is more effective than just the predictions they were making in 2020.

During a Politicon debate in Los Angeles on October 20, 2018, Kirk posed the question every conservative has wanted to ask every champagne socialist: if communism is so great, why don’t you live it?

“Why don’t you give 95% of your money away and go live on a commune?” — Charlie Kirk

Piker’s response was textbook leftist deflection. When Kirk pressed him to practice what he preaches, the streamer called the suggestion “absolutely preposterous.”

“I will be very honest, it’s really embarrassing especially because my boss is sitting right there, I make $60,000 a year, okay?” Piker claimed during the debate. “And that’s a really good salary.”

Kirk didn’t let him off the hook.

“I live what I practice,” Kirk fired back. “I am a free-market capitalist, I employ people, I took a risk, I have my own start-up business. Every single day, I practice what I preach. He wants other people to contribute to what he considers to be a good idea, what he considers will make the world a better place.”

The Turning Point USA founder then delivered the knockout line: “You have the freedom to go live as a socialist. Go do it, Hasan. What’s stopping you?”

The exchange devolved when Cenk Uygur — Piker’s uncle and boss at The Young Turks — began shouting at Kirk from the audience, demanding to know Kirk’s own salary. Kirk responded that he made less than Piker and lived his capitalist principles every single day.

The debate was one of many examples of how Kirk fearlessly defended conservative principles in hostile leftist environments.

Tragically, on September 10, 2025, Kirk was fatally attacked while speaking on the campus of Utah Valley University. The Turning Point USA founder was taking a question about transgender mass attackers when he was targeted. According to charging documents, the suspect texted his roommate and trans-identifying lover afterward: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

Since that 2018 debate, Piker’s hypocrisy has only grown more glaring.

The self-proclaimed communist now owns a $2.7 million West Hollywood mansion — a long way from the commune Kirk suggested he join. Fox Business host Charles Payne put Piker’s net worth at $35 million on air Wednesday, though public estimates vary widely, with Celebrity Net Worth listing roughly $8 million.

Either way, that’s a far cry from the $60,000 salary Piker claimed in 2018.

Piker has since been embraced by prominent Democrats including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This year, he campaigned with Democratic House and Senate candidates in New York and Michigan, including Michigan Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed, who is hoping to become the first Muslim U.S. senator.

The streamer’s radical views have only intensified. In an April New York Times podcast, Piker said he’s “pro stealing from big corporations, because they steal quite a bit more from their own workers,” and added that while he doesn’t shoplift himself, “if someone needs the food, they should absolutely steal it.”

Piker has praised murderous Chinese communist dictator Mao Zedong and argued that America “deserved 9/11.” In March 2025, Piker was temporarily suspended from the streaming platform Twitch — his fifth suspension — after saying that if Republicans cared about entitlement fraud, “you would end Rick Scott.”

Kirk’s 2018 question remains unanswered: if socialism is the answer, why won’t Hasan Piker live it?

Oliver Larkin, who volunteered for Barack Obama in 2008 and led a New Hampshire field office for Bernie Sanders in 2016, sparred with Hannity over his Democratic Socialists of America-aligned platform as Florida voters prepare to vote Tuesday.

When asked about an economy based on “to each American based on their needs from each American based on their ability,” Larkin replied, “I think that’s a fine concept.”

The axiom was popularized in 1875 by German political theorist Karl Marx in his “Critique of the Gotha Programme.”

“I THINK THAT’S A FINE CONCEPT” — LARKIN ON KARL MARX’S VISION FOR AMERICA

Larkin is challenging moderate Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., in a district considered a prime Republican target in November’s general election. He told Hannity he was less concerned with ideological labels than with meeting constituents.

“I’m coming at the race from a pragmatic point of view of what the American people and the people of South Florida need, and that is Medicare-for-all, that is universal child care,” Larkin said.

Before introducing Larkin, Hannity listed a series of policies the millennial left-winger supports: abolishing the Electoral College, automatic same-day voter registration, shunning fossil fuels, abolishing ICE and prosecuting its agents, free public college, ending sanctions on Iran and Cuba, and what Hannity described as a “passionate hatred of Israel.”

Hannity challenged Larkin to go beyond proposals and explain how he would achieve each objective — starting with higher federal taxes.

“Out of every dollar these so-called ‘evil rich people’ make, how much should they be able to keep…?” Hannity asked.

Instead of offering a figure, Larkin praised former Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower for presiding over extremely high top marginal tax rates.

“Give me a number,” Hannity demanded.

Larkin replied that the figure depends on income, but did not specify any ranges except to say that “billionaires should be taxed out of existence.”

Hannity countered that most billionaires are among the “most brilliant” people and argued that it is wrong to take money from the most creative Americans through higher taxes.

Larkin fired back that X CEO Elon Musk — the world’s richest person — has received billions in government subsidies that helped build his wealth. He called the South African immigrant a “vulture” for buying Tesla and presiding over its largesse.

“BILLIONAIRES SHOULD BE TAXED OUT OF EXISTENCE” — LARKIN’S ANSWER ON TAX POLICY

Hannity returned to pressing for specifics about tax rates Americans at different income levels should pay under a socialist system.

“How much are you willing to let the government take? How much? Give us a number,” he said, asking for an example with an American making $100,000 per year.

“I want to see a return on our taxpayer investment,” Larkin replied without offering a specific figure.

“I’m not interested in changing the tax rate on middle-class Americans on people making a hundred grand,” he later added, prompting Hannity to ask what tax rate should apply to people making $500,000.

“Give me a number,” Hannity insisted. “The DSA people talk a lot about fairness. What is fair for a guy that makes a half a million dollars a year out of every dollar — how much should the government get? Answer the question.”

“It’s not that simple,” Larkin argued. After crosstalk, the candidate said the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes should be raised, but did not specify an amount.

Moskowitz’s and Larkin’s district has been represented by Democrats for most of the modern era. Over the past two decades, Col. Allen West has been the only Republican to represent the district, serving one term.

After socialist candidates lost in Wisconsin but won in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York and Minnesota, Florida Democrats will decide Tuesday whether to follow the same trend.