
A Review of the DSA 2026 Platform
Rather than just endlessly moaning about how the DSAs suck, I thought it would be useful to actually take a look at the specific details of the DSA platform as of 2026. Now, as far as I’m aware, not every DSA candidate has endorsed the full scope of this platform, but this is the organization’s stated platform and I think it is fair to take it as representative of their overall policy goals.
To that end, I’ve gone through platform the DSAs have posted on their website and done my best to extract concrete policy points. Being a political platform rather than a policy document, there is a lot of fluff and it is relatively light on details, but that’s not unreasonable given its purpose. However, I’m not here to comment on statements of value, just what I read as the policy recommendations in the platform. It’s not a long document (significantly shorter than the 2024 GOP platform and a small fraction of the 2024 Democratic platform), so I encourage you to read it yourself. It’s split into three main components: “thriving working class communities”, “working class foreign policy”, and “working class democracy”. These loosely correlate to economic and social policy, foreign policy, and political reform, respectively, though with some overlap.
Rather than going through point by point (especially given that the points are my interpretation), I’ve made brief commentary on each section and subsection. The commentary is necessarily my opinion, and it is also colored by my prior views on the DSAs (which are largely negative); I am trying to give the ideas a fair shake, but I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased or like there's no context for interpreting vague proposals. Lastly, I am only commenting on what I see as the merits of platform positions, not their tactical viability.
Link to the DSA platform: https://program.dsausa.org/
>Our program was drafted between the months of April and June 2026 by a committee of DSA members, elected through a process established by DSA’s 2025 National Convention. The program committee included members of DSA’s National Political Committee (NPC), leaders of national committees, and rank and file members, representing the political breadth of our big tent organization.
___
THRIVING WORK-CLASS COMMUNITIES (i.e. domestic policy)
- Freedom to Flourish
- Universal Paid Family Leave
- 32 hour work week “with full pay and benefits” (not clear what this means, given the rest of their platform)
- Living minimum wage
- Free college
- Cancel existing student debt
- Healthcare for all
- Zero-cost universal healthcare
- Publicly-run medical facilities (presumably as an addition – no indication of plans to ban private medical facilities)
- Free and “public” (not clear what this means) medical education
- Housing for All
- State-built and owned housing
- "Strictly regulate” investment properties
- Universal rent control
- “Guaranteed right to counsel for all tenants”
- Finish Reconstruction
- Reparations
- Honor all treaties and tribal sovereignty
- Invest in minority communities
- End Mass Incarceration and Police Immunity
- “Demilitarize police departments”
- “Disempower” police unions
- End goal: abolition of police and prisons
- End qualified immunity
- Civilian oversight bodies for police forces
- Feminism for All
- Ban sex discrimination
- Green New Deal
- Federal Jobs Guarantee
- Publicly-owned renewable energy infrastructure
- Publicly-owned transit infrastructure
- Phase out fossil fuels
Freedom to flourish: Universal paid family leave is a fairly reasonable proposal (devil’s in the details, though, and given much of the rest of this platform, I am not brimming with confidence). The rest I am rather unimpressed by. “Living minimum wage” is a vague goal and given the DSA’s concentration in high COL coastal cities, I have a bad feeling that this would manifest as an effort to legislate a local issue at the federal level. Free college without any serious plan to actually manage the cost of tuition is liable to simply create a fiscal cancer (more than it already has).
Healthcare for all: this is sufficiently light on details that it is facially unobjectionable. Again, given the DSA’s historical lack of interest in cost management, I am not encouraged, but there’s no reason why you couldn’t put these points into a reasonable UHC policy.
Housing for All: …bad. The history of publicly built and managed housing in the United States is pretty dismal. Generally expensive and subject to popular opposition, plans to ameliorate housing shortages by focusing on public housing are unlikely to succeed. Regulation of investment properties and universal rent control are wrongheaded slopulism, and taken with the focus on public housing strongly indicate to me that DSAs do not have their hands around the actual drivers of housing costs in the US. Tenants’ counsel is at least intriguing, but I have a strong suspicion it will simply amount to a jobs program for underemployed law-degree holders in the DSAs.
Finish Reconstruction: woke 1 was crazy, huh. I don’t really know how to address these, since these aren’t really substantive points, even if they are specific. Actually honoring treaties with Native Americans would require displacing hundreds of millions of people and functionally entail the dissolution of the United States. I’m going to do them the credit of assuming they don’t mean that.
End Mass Incarceration: this section combines relatively normal criminal justice reform proposals with the rather out-there objectives of police and prison abolition and the meme-tier subject of police demilitarization. I don’t find this segment particularly impressive because it more or less confirms my prior view that DSAs and others in the leftist camp of CJR essentially think that crime is something the bourgeoisie invented to keep the working man down.
Feminism for All: similarly light on substance to ‘Finish Reconstruction’.
Green New Deal: a federal job guarantee is an unbelievable howler that completely overshadows the rest of this section. Job guarantees are one of those things that sound nice if you’re an idiot, but once you start digging into how it would actually work it’s inarguably terrible.
Overall: this section is a pinch of bold-but-credible plans salted over some quite radical and ill-conceived schemes. A common jab against DSAs and others in their orbit is that they’re economically illiterate and don’t think costs are real, and it really hits home here. There’s nothing explicitly degrowthy about the proposals herein, but there’s a basic assumption in these policies that we have more than enough of everything already and it’s just a matter of distributing it properly (which is why, for example, it’s reasonable to cut economic activity by 20% while also creating a bunch of taxpayer-funded fake jobs).
___
WORKING CLASS FOREIGN POLICY (I think you can figure this one out)
- End the US War Machine
- “Defund” the Department of War
- End all foreign military deployments and close all overseas military bases
- Join the ICC
- Free Palestine
- Establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital
- End all support for Israel
- End blockades, embargoes, and Sanctions
- Lift sanctions and embargoes on Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela
- Abolish ICE
- Abolish ICE
End the US War Machine: whenever someone tries to tell me that DSAs think seriously about foreign policy, I can point to this in response. The desire to hold war criminals accountable is admirable. The desire to completely abandon US security commitments around the world is either mind-bogglingly stupid or utterly contemptible, and given the pro-Iranian position elsewhere, I have a guess as to which.
Free Palestine: the good news is that if you establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, you won’t have to worry about any support for Israel. As is common with western anti-zionists, they sort of elide the implications of these goals, though.
End Embargoes: there is a paradox in a certain kind of leftist’s view on international trade, in which it is both morally repulsive to trade with authoritarian regimes and imperialistic to… not trade with authoritarian regimes.
Abolish ICE: sure, I guess, but this isn’t foreign policy.
Overall: I simply do not think that the DSAs think seriously about foreign policy. I know it’s a glib dismissal, but the extent of their thinking really is “America Bad.” That is the only principle which ties their views together in a coherent fashion and explains their kneejerk defensiveness of reactionary authoritarian regimes.
___
WORKING CLASS DEMOCRACY (Political/Economic Reform)
- Democracy for all
- Full voting rights for all permanent residents
- Full voting rights for convicted felons
- DC statehood
- Self-determination for US territories and colonies
- A real democracy
- Ban lobbying
- Ban dark money
- Mandatory public financing for elections
- Abolish the electoral college
- Parliamentary supremacy
- A democratic congress
- Expand the House of Representatives
- Abolish the senate
- Proportional representation in all elections
- Ranked Choice voting in all elections
- Economic Democracy
- Nationalize large corporations and “essential industries”
- “Aggressive” wealth taxes
- Democracy at work
Democracy for all: the specification of “self-determination” for everyone but DC is a bit weird. Overall I’d say this is all fine, but I think voting rights for permanent residents is a bridge too far. Citizenship carries obligations as well as privileges, and to extend the privileges without the obligations is to, paradoxically, turn citizens into second-class citizens.
A Real Democracy: a pretty mixed bag. Election finance reform is a fairly tricky business, and prohibiting unwanted lobbying or campaign spending in way that isn’t massively infringing on free speech (your pernicious lobbying, my democratic advocacy). Wanting to abolish an independent judiciary amounts to an effective proposal to abolish constitutional government, which I cannot help but see as a “we’re never going to lose again” position. Abolishing the electoral college is a perfectly good idea, but when you plan to switch
A Democratic Congress: my main comments here are a) quite a lot of people *like* having territorial representation b) I really don’t know what political dynamics you’d get out of a massively expanded house elected on two year cycles, but I’m not convinced they’d be good. Of course, since you’re switching to a pure PR system, a lot of the volatility would be ironed out that way.
Economic Democracy: the commanding heights are back, baby! Wealth taxes are a footnote compared to the proposal that major corporations and industries should be publicly owned. Given the present difficulties the USG has in doing anything in a cost-effective manner, I think this is a pretty bad idea. Given the DSAs’ politics, it’d be badly run at best, and would quite likely turn into a system for distributing spoils to particularist interest groups.
Democracy at work: there’s no policy here. It’s just saying “we like unions.”
Overall: by far the most reasonable section. Many of the political reform proposals are actually good, if maybe difficult to implement in a satisfactory way. Even the proposal to nationalize major industries is within the historical context, and while we know it doesn’t go great, we also know it’s not the end of the world. However, there are some worrying elements of the reform program. One of my personal critiques of more radical left-wing political thinking is that they purport to like democracy and popular sovereignty, but do not really see other political factions as legitimate participants. The result is a worrying triumphalism in their view of constitutional change, where they assume that once they sweep away the toxic elements of the old system The People will recognize their essential correctness. History has shown us that they’re often quite flexible about what constitutes democracy when it turns out the voting public isn’t as dispositionally leftist as they’re supposed to be.
___
All in all, this platform contains a decent number of reasonable or at least defensible proposals, but it also fails to beat the “cake and ice cream” party allegations. Foreign policy is straightforwardly campist nonsense that would have disastrous consequences if taken literally, and the fact that their only specific topics of discussion for foreign policy are leftist dictatorships and the Arab-Israeli conflict is hella sus. Economic policy proposals are radical, but mostly in a way that seems frivolous and aimed at protecting the interests specifically of underemployed college graduates living in major coastal cities. The political reform proposals are mostly decent, though ironically most of them would not benefit the DSAs.
I’m biased, because I already don’t like the DSAs (a bold stance on this forum), but I think this platform is a bad political program on its own merits (it’s also radioactive electorally, but that’s another matter). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most prominent DSA candidates are not really running on it, but it’s not a strong argument for your organization when your most successful members are quietly disavowing you.