Before we start, we’re asking everyone to write to your elected officials to support H.794 and S.282. Tell them that you want to tax the rich for healthcare and schools!

GREEN MOUNTAIN DSA MONTH IN REVIEW

February was a month of incredible momentum for Green Mountain DSA, bookended by electoral victory and direct action. We are thrilled to open this newsletter by congratulating our endorsed Burlington City Council candidate, Marek Broderick, on their decisive Town Meeting Day win! Marek defeated a Democratic opponent with a strong tally of 301 to 187, securing a second term representing Ward 8. In the weeks leading up to the vote, our members made phone calls and knocked doors (again and again) across the entire ward to ensure voters had a plan. We are proud to stand behind a proven champion for renters, UVM students, and working-class Burlingtonians. Marek's leadership in passing a resolution to address deteriorating student housing is just one example of the socialist leadership we are building in Chittenden County.

At our February General Membership Meeting in Montpelier, members discussed our growing chapter-wide priority campaign, "Tax the Rich," supporting H.794 and S.282—legislation championed by our own State Senator Tanya Vyhovsky and Rep. Kate Logan that would generate hundreds of millions in revenue by making the wealthiest Vermonters pay their fair share. Green Mountain DSA organized a press conference at the State House in February and coverage by WCAX features Rep. Kate Logan detailing just how much working Vermonters stand to win by taxing the rich. The February General Membership Meeting also featured updates on our Palestine solidarity work (“No Appetite for Apartheid” campaign), and local ballot initiatives (“Proposition Zero” in Burlington). Alongside these campaigns, our chapter is deepening its foundation by launching weekly Saturday-Sunday socials to build comradeship and expanding our reach to southern counties through our “Statewide Expansion Working Group”. From electoral wins to anti-war action in coalition, your Green Mountain DSA is proving that another Vermont—one centered on working-class power and solidarity—is not only possible, but already being built. In solidarity, and see you at a meeting, social, or on the streets some time soon!

WE’RE BUILDING A FAMILY-FRIENDLY GMDSA

Green Mountain Democratic Socialists of America is working towards making our organization more accessible to parents and guardians. You can help us by letting us know if you would benefit from childcare being offered at our general meetings.

Please fill out our Childcare Needs Survey: https://forms.gle/6Mq1KHWGrc3QgLGv8 

GREEN MOUNTAIN DSA MEETINGS AND EVENTS

Our Labor Committee meets on the second Monday of every month at 6:00pm on Zoom, including Monday March 9th. 

  Our Electoral Committee will meet on Tuesday March 10. The electoral committee meets at 6:00pm on Zoom. 

🌹The next May Day Coalition meeting is Tuesday March 10 at 6:00pm at Migrant Justice (179 S. Winooski Ave., Burlington) and on Zoom. 

Talk about your job and learn about shop-floor organizing from peers at Workers' Circle (co-hosted with the Green Mountain IWW) on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month, including Wednesday March 11 at 6:00pm at Migrant Justice (179 S. Winooski Ave., Burlington).

💰Our Tax the Rich Working Group will meet on every Sunday, including March 15 at 6:00pm on Zoom..

Find out how you can help our Membership Committee improve recruitment and involvement in our chapter on Monday, March 16. The Membership Committee meets on the 3rd Monday of every month at 6:00pm on Zoom. 

GMDSA's East and West branches will come together for another general meeting on Saturday March 21 at 11:30 a.m. at TBD (Most likely the Public Library in South Burlington). Newcomers are encouraged to show up at 10:30 a.m. for an optional “DSA 101” orientation. Everyone is welcome to join for coffee hour with snacks and discussion at 11:00 a.m. prior to the start of the general meeting.

🇵🇸 Our Palestine Solidarity Committee will meet on Monday March 23. The Palestine solidarity committee meets on the 4th Monday of every month at 6:00pm on Zoom. 

📱Our Communications Committee will meet on Monday March 23. The communications committee meets on the 4th Monday of every month at 7:00pm on Zoom. 

📑 Our Steering Committee meets on the first Monday of every month at 7:30pm on Zoom, including Monday April 6. All members are welcome to participate in the meeting discussion, only members of the steering committee can vote. We will have a hybrid meeting this month. We will be meeting at the Queen City Lodge Oddfellows Hall. The address is 1416 North Ave in Burlington. Email hello@greenmountaindsa.org for the Zoom link if you would prefer to join online

Add our Google Calendar 📅 - Check out our website 🌐

IMPORTANT DATES THIS YEAR

• International Workers’ Day: May 1, 2026

• 2026 Labor Notes Conference: June 12-14

• Vermont Primary Election: August 11, 2026

• Labor Day: September 7, 2026

• General Election: November 3, 2026

• Next GMDSA Convention: November 2026

• Next DSA National Convention: August 2027

We’re living in interesting times, comrade.

As I write, we are witnessing the opening salvos of what will likely develop into a major war of aggression by the US and Israel against Iran. The imperialist order is in decline across the globe. But, that also means the capitalist class that benefits from that order has never been more desperate — or more dangerous.

It’s clearer than ever that we have two choices: socialism or barbarism. We can have a world defined by peace, justice, and a dignified life for all people, or we can have a world defined by endless war, oppression, and suffering for all but an ever-shrinking circle of elites. It can feel hopeless sometimes, but that’s when we need to remember: there’s a power at the core of this monstrous machine. The force that keeps the wheels of this machine turning is our labor.

Our hands are on the switch, and we can turn off the war machine any time we choose. We just need to have enough hands pulling in unison.

The DSA is now more than 100,000 members strong, spread across all 50 states. We’re the largest socialist organization in US history by membership. And, our ranks are still growing fast.

Read on to see what we’ve been up to… and learn what’s coming next!

February Highlights

We started off the month with members braving the cold to kickoff the canvassing efforts to re-elect PDSA member Richie Floyd to St. Pete City Council. This is a critical project of our Electoral Committee, and although it’s only been a couple of weeks, we’re already well on the way to collecting enough petition signatures to secure Richie’s spot on the ballot (rather than buying ballot access, as most candidates do).

The Ecosocialist Working Group continued to advance our ongoing Dump Duke campaign, with organizers facing off against a representative from Duke Energy’s dark-money front group, to argue the merits of public power.

Our Education-Social Working Group hosted Capitalism vs. Socialism, the latest installment of our core training on the basics of organizing with DSA. In the session, which attracted nearly three dozen attendees (pretty good for a Friday night!), organizers explained why we believe that socialism is a superior system to capitalism, and how a socialist society compares to our existing capitalist one. And, our International Solidarity Working Group stayed busy, too, hosting a demonstration at the Chevron station on Sunset Point Road in Clearwater to protest Chevron’s complicity in the genocide in Gaza as part of the ongoing #StopFuelingGenocide campaign.

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: Re-Elect Richie Floyd

Our campaign to re-elect Richie Floyd to the St. Petersburg City Council is shifting into high gear!

Since launching the campaign last month, DSA members have doggedly showed up, weekend after weekend, braving both the cold and the heat to knock doors in District 8. While the campaign could simply buy ballot access, as most elected officials do, the members of our chapter agreed to take the same approach as we did with Richie’s first election campaign, doing it the grassroots way and collecting petition signatures to gain a spot on the ballot instead.

After just one month, we’ve already collected more than half of the 500 signatures needed! As of right now, the campaign is in good shape. But, we need to keep up the energy and get those signatures. This is a people-powered campaign, so let’s show the members of the capitalist class here in St. Pete what the people can do!

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: End 287(g)

Pinellas DSA, as a member organization of the Tampa Bay Immigrant Solidarity Network, hosted a public volunteer meeting on Saturday, February 21 at WonderWorks in Gulfport. Much like neighboring St. Petersburg, the Gulfport Police Department has signed a 287(g) agreement with ICE, volunteering their officers to work as deputized enforcers for the spear of the US regime’s fascist immigration policy. Our ongoing campaign aims to pressure local police departments in Pinellas County to end these agreements and to refuse to collaborate with ICE.

Following a presentation on local 287(g) agreements — including how they undermine public trust in law enforcement, drain public resources, fuel racial profiling, and erode due process — attendees went out to canvass neighborhoods across Gulfport, raise awareness about 287(g), and invite community members to sign petitions calling for an end to the city’s collaboration with ICE.

Our demand of local government officials is simple: No collaboration with fascism! No ICE in our streets!

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: Dump Duke

DSA members spearheading the Dump Duke campaign continue to pressure St. Pete officials to explore the feasibility of creating a publicly owned power utility in the city. We’re up against mounting resistance from dark-money groups funded by Duke Energy, including the Clearwater Energy Alliance and the St. Pete Energy Alliance. But, even with all the money Duke is throwing against us, we’ve got the people on our side!

Organizers with Dump Duke faced off against a representative from the Clearwater Energy Alliance as part the “Opposites Attract” debate series at Bayboro Brewing on February 9. We laid out a clear, practical case for public power — a publicly-owned municipal utility that puts reliability, affordability, and accountability ahead of corporate profit.

Dump Duke organizers also hit the streets at the Mezzo Market, speaking to St. Pete residents, asking their feelings about Duke Energy, and getting the word out that an alternative option is a real possibility!

If you haven’t already, make sure you sign the petition calling on city officials to fund a feasibility study on public power, and to begin negotiations with Duke Energy to end St. Pete’s relationship with the company. Also, if you’re interested in helping build support for public power, go to dumpdukefl.com to learn how you can get involved!

Upcoming Events

We have more than two dozen political events, working group meetings, and social outings scheduled in March. You can always view our full calendar of upcoming events, along with the most up-to-date times and locations, on our website: https://www.pinellasdsa.org/home.

Health Justice Working Group Meeting

Monday, March 2 from 7:00–8:30pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Petersburg). Meeting will be hosted in Wesley Room & virtually via Zoom.

Housing Working Group & St. Pete Tenants Joint Meeting

Tuesday, March 3 from 7:00–8:30pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Petersburg). Discuss and take action on the housing crisis in St. Pete at this joint meeting between the St. Pete Tenants Union and Pinellas DSA.

Socialists in Office Working Group Meeting

Wednesday, March 4 from 6:30–8:00pm at Allendale UMC.

Run DSA: Glow in the Park 5k

Thursday, March 5 from 6:30–8:00pm at Allendale UMC. Join us in the Hybrid room for a basic training on protest marshalling.

Canvas for Richie Floyd

Saturday, March 7 from 10:30am–1:30pm at Gladden Park Recreation Center (3901 30th Ave N. in St. Petersburg). RSVP at richiefloyd.com/volunteer-rsvp.

Self-Managed Abortion Canvass

Saturday, March 7 from 2:30–4:00pm at the President Barack Obama Main Library (3745 9th Ave N. in St. Petersburg).

General Meeting & Social

Sunday, March 8 from 2:00–3:30pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Petersburg). To be followed immediately after by the Socialist Social Hour, with food and (non-alcoholic) drinks provided!

International Solidary Working Group Meeting

Monday, March 9·from 6:30–8:00pm. This will be a virtual-only meeting. Zoom Link.

Book Study: Health Justice Now!

Tuesday, March 10 from 6:15–8:00pm at Allendale UMC. Join us to read and discuss Timothy Faust’s Health Justice Now: Single Payer and What Comes Next. We will be meet in-person in the Hybrid Room and via Zoom.

Bylaws Meeting

Wednesday, March 11 from 6:30–8:00pm. At Allendale UMC, in the Teresa Room.

Cuba: An American History Reading Group

Thursday, March 12 from 6:30–7:30pm at Allendale UMC. Meet us in the Wesley Room for our final discussion of Cuba: An American History.

North County Meeting & Social

Friday, March 13 from 6:30–9:30pm. Location TBD.

Canvas for Richie Floyd

Saturday, March 14 from 10:30am–1:30pm. Location TBD. RSVP at richiefloyd.com/volunteer-rsvp.

Safe Self-Managed Abortion Info Session

Sunday, March 15 from 11:00am-12:00pm at the President Barack Obama Main Library in St. Pete.

Boca Ciega Apartments Canvassing

Sunday, March 15 from 1:00–2:00pm. Canvass the Boca Ciega Apartments (3401 37th St S. in St. Petersburg) to inform and encourage tenants to attend a tenants meeting, where they can tackle the issues facing their property together!

Steering Committee Meeting

Sunday, March 15 from 7:00–8:30pm at Allendale UMC.

Fundraising Committee Meeting

Monday, March 16 from 6:30–8:00pm. Our chapter’s monthly fundraising check-in and brainstorming session at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Petersburg). Will be hosted in the Hybrid Room, as well as virtually. Zoom link.

Electoral Committee Meeting

Wednesday, March 18 from 6:30–8:30pm. To be hosted at Allendale UMC in the Wesley Room.

Ecosocialist Working Group Meeting

Thursday, March 19 from 6:30–8:00pm. Hosted at Allendale UMC in the Hybrid Room.

Labor Committee Meeting

Friday, March 20 from 6:30–8:00pm at the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association offices (650 Seminole Blvd. in Largo).

Canvas for Richie Floyd

Saturday, March 21 from 10:30am–1:30pm. Location TBD. RSVP at richiefloyd.com/volunteer-rsvp.

Dump Duke Social & Canvass

Sunday, March 22 from 10:30am-2:00pm at Dell Holmes Park (2741 22nd St S. in St. Petersburg).

International Solidarity Working Group Meeting

Monday, March 23 from 6:30–8:00pm. Meeting at Allendale UMC in the Hybrid Room.

Canvas for Richie Floyd

Saturday, March 28 21 from 10:30am–1:30pm. Location TBD, but RSVP at richiefloyd.com/volunteer-rsvp.

Pinellas DSA Orientation

Saturday, March 28 from 2:30–4:00pm. New member orientation hosted at Allendale UMC in the Hybrid Room.

DSA Nature Walk

Sunday, March 29 from 10:30am-12:00pm. All this organizing can wear you out — refresh and recharge with comrades on a nature walk at Sawgrass Lake Park (7400 25th St N. in St. Petersburg)!

NOTE: All dates and times are subject to change, so check the website regularly for updates!

Based on recent polling, it doesn’t look good for Gov. Janet Mills. Two new polls show her down by somewhere between seven and 38 points in her race for the Democratic nomination to unseat Sen. Susan Collins. And the poll showing her down seven, had her up ten a few months ago! 

At this point, the easiest call for a political pundit to make would be that the primary will go to Graham Platner, an incredibly on-point veteran turned populist oysterman.

And they would be right.

In truth, if Mills wants to save face, and save Democratic donors a lot of money, she should probably drop out. But, in truth, I don’t really believe she should. I think primaries are good. They are a testing/training ground for candidates, so everyone is better prepared for the big show in the fall.

And let’s be honest, Platner needs some testing. While I haven’t officially endorsed anyone yet, the Maine People’s Alliance, of which the Maine Beacon is a project, has endorsed Platner. Rightly so. His economic populist message, anti-ICE courage, and vociferous anti-war positions on Gaza and Iran, put him squarely in the lane where Democrats need to be for the good of our state and the nation. That said, his past statements about women, people of color, and rural voters are obviously problematic and could be huge liabilities in the general election. Having a robust primary will make sure voters have fully heard everything, so, if (when) he wins, nothing Collins’ says will be new information to voters.

Indeed, Mills’ strongest (and perhaps only) strength in the race is that she is already known and tested. It’s pretty much all her supporters are saying about her, and what she emphasizes the most on the campaign trail.

But being known and tested is simply not enough for most voters. Beating Collins is going to be very difficult regardless of who we pick (Collins is polling in basically the same low place as where she polled in 2020, before cruising to victory). To that end, we aren’t going to waste our vote on someone, if that person doesn’t, at a minimum, boldly address what we care about.

And this is where Mills has fallen woefully short. From guns to the environment to workers, and most especially around affordability and income inequality. Meanwhile Platner is putting forward a populist agenda that focuses on taxing the rich, expanding Medicare to all, providing affordable childcare for parents, protecting the rights of workers to organize, and raising the national minimum wage. That’s an agenda people can get behind.

We have not seen this from Mills, either in her language, or in her legislative agenda. Just the opposite in some cases, which is likely why she is so far behind. But as someone who has no small amount of power right now, Mills has the chance to get more popular by actually getting behind and pushing through an affordability agenda.  

The legislature is in session for about six more weeks. If Mills wants people to believe she’s got the goods, she should use her advantage as governor by submitting emergency legislation to impose a 4% tax on Maine millionaires, expand the inheritance tax on the same people, subsidize the ACA subsidies that expired for Maine families, match the state’s minimum wage to Portland’s ($19 by 2028), pay for every district to expand universal pre-K down to three year olds, put a cap on all rent increases tied to CPI, and push out a $250 million bond to build affordable housing.

If she does all that, or even some of it, it will be good for all of us. Win, lose, or draw the primary.

If not? Then I take it back. Just drop out and save us all the time.

***

This story was originally published by The Beacon, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. To get regular coverage from the Beacon, sign up for the free Beacon newsletter here.

The post Opinion: It’s time for Mills to drop out (or step up) appeared first on Pine & Roses.

STATEMENT ON DSA-LA’S ENDORSEMENT FOR MAYOR

Two left candidates who are DSA-LA members are now challenging Mayor Karen Bass in her re-election campaign: Councilmember Nithya Raman and Reverend Rae Huang. This has raised questions about DSA-LA’s endorsement for Mayor.

As with all major decisions for our local chapter, political candidate endorsements are driven and democratically decided by DSA-LA members.

Our endorsements require thorough discussion and debate because an endorsement from DSA-LA is not just another logo on a campaign mailer. When our members vote to endorse a candidate, it comes with a serious commitment of resources and time. We have a detailed and robust process for ensuring that any campaign we endorse is also building our movement.

At this time, DSA-LA has not endorsed anyone for Mayor in 2026, and any future endorsements will only be considered if motivated by a petition and approved if voted on by the chapter’s membership.

Should a mayoral candidate receive DSA-LA’s endorsement, we will throw the full weight of our power behind their campaign. For now, we are focusing that power on our already-endorsed candidates that make up the Shake Up City Hall slate—Marissa Roy for City Attorney, Rocio Rivas for LAUSD School Board, and Hugo Soto-Martinez, Eunisses Hernandez, Faizah Malik, and Estuardo Mazariegos for City Council.

Our Shake Up City Hall slate is made up of renters, immigrants, union members, and devoted DSA-LA members who are going to fight against ICE, the fascist Trump administration, bad bosses, and billionaires. That’s why we endorsed them. Winning these six races—the most we’ve ever endorsed in one election cycle—will be a monumental achievement toward building a Los Angeles for the working class. Sign up to get involved at shakeup.la.

-2026 DSA-LA Steering Committee

Graham Platner’s campaign in Maine’s 2026 Senate race has caused divided opinions among many of the state’s progressive and left wing voters, partly due to revelations around his former military contractor work, comments he made online in the past, and especially due to a totenkopf tattoo he received while serving in the Marines overseas. The tattoo is a design that was historically used by the Nazi SS, and has become a popular symbol with white supremacist circles. Platner has since had the tattoo removed and claims he did not know about the hateful history behind the design when we got it in the early 2000’s. However, it has left a good number of progressives and leftists struggling with whether they can support him or not, while he presents himself as a left populist fighting for a pro-working class platform.

Two contributors holding different opinions on the candidate, Rose DuBois and T. Sinclair, have agreed to share their conversation on the candidate’s acceptability and viability. Below is a transcript of their back-and-forth. 

***

T. Sinclair

Before we get started, I want to clarify that in no way am I excusing Platner’s tattoo. It was a dumb thing to get when he was young and in the Marines, and a disgusting symbol of hatred. And, whether you believe him when he says he didn’t know what it represented when he got it, I think it’s important to consider that people grow and worldviews can change. Graham has shown in the last five years or so that he has evolved to genuinely hold progressive, working class values that support all people, no matter race, gender, or orientation; not just with his words, but also through his community work with Action Acadia. The Democratic field has a handful of declared candidates, but most agree that the nomination comes down to Platner or current Governor, Janet Mills. Given Mills’ centrist (and sometimes conservative) record on labor, criminal justice reform, and indigenous rights, coupled with her lower than average approval rating, I think Graham Platner is a win-win candidate with not only the best chances of beating Susan Collins in November, but also delivering on a true working class agenda. But I am interested in hearing your thoughts, Rose.

Rose DuBois

Up front I want to start by dismissing the various other “scandals” that have plagued Platner. There’s a lot of, I would argue, fairly bad faith criticisms of him that just don’t resonate with me, or with I think most Maine voters. Even the Reddit comments, while they did bother me, I also know how people talk online, and as you said, people can change. I found his apology video for the comments to be quite persuasive. Nor am I in favor of Janet Mills. I was incredibly excited when I found out someone was going to be challenging her for the nomination, and was a big supporter of Platner from day one. But having a Nazi tattoo—regardless of any context—should be a red line.

I’m willing to entertain his claim that he didn’t know what it was when he got it—fair enough, people do stupid shit. And if it had come out that he’d gotten one, but had it removed years ago, I’d maybe see it in a different light. But the idea that he didn’t know what it was until now, twenty years later, is completely ridiculous. We should absolutely extend grace to those who strive for redemption, but redemption requires remorse about one’s actions. Denial is the exact opposite, an attempt to escape responsibility.

But ultimately the specifics of shortcomings of a single person are less interesting to me than the wider context in which this is occurring. Even beyond the fascistic politics of Trump and MAGA, an open embrace of Nazism is becoming more widespread in our society. Admiration of Hitler, and belief in conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial are increasingly common aspects of right wing politics, particularly among young Republicans. By electing someone to congress with a Nazi tattoo, we are helping normalize this, something that is extremely dangerous. How can we, for example, attack Elon Musk for doing a Nazi salute, and paint his claim it was another gesture as an obvious lie, when we ourselves engage in the exact same practice of obfuscation for what is very clearly a Nazi symbol? It only serves to muddy the waters, and make it easier to get away with this sort of thing.

And while attempts to depict any support for Palestine as being inherently antisemitic are preposterous, it’s unfortunately the case that antisemitism is also a growing problem on the left as well. What will it mean when the most pro-Palestinian member of the Senate (which I believe Platner would be) is also someone with a tattoo of the unit that was responsible to administering the death camps. It doesn’t take a political genius to see how this will get used by pro-Israeli figures and organizations in our politics. 

T. Sinclair

I see where you’re coming from, and I completely understand the concern with a member of Congress who formerly had a Nazi symbol tattoo (he has since covered it up) serving as a representative of the left, and how AIPAC would use that in ad campaigns. There is no doubt antisemitism is on the rise; people on the left who rightly call out the state of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and apartheid policies have made clear time and time again that their criticisms are of a nation-state, not Judaism or Jewish people, but even in some far reaches of the left (and pretty blatantly on the right) antisemitism has crept in and must be combatted. I don’t think Platner is in those far reaches of the left though, and rather stands firmly with 99% of progressives and leftists who abhor all racism and ethnic hatred. 

While I take him at face value that he didn’t know it was a Nazi tattoo (his wife and her family are Jewish and he claims they never raised concerns about it, and he passed federal screenings for gang/hate tattoos), let’s assume for a second that he at least had an inkling. I can see that causing voters to take a great pause and really inspect his politics. When you do that, what you find is a man who had mental health trauma from multiple tours in active war zones, came home and sought treatment for it, realized how messed up it is that working families can’t afford basic healthcare (or housing, or childcare, etc.), saw that the system was deeply flawed and got involved with local community organizing for progressive causes. 

Facing the given situation, MAGA and Trump 2.0, which is kidnapping people off our streets to extra-judicially deport, initiating illegal violence overseas, attacking the rights of our LGBTQ neighbors, flagrantly bypassing Congress and taking over agencies like the Federal Reserve, FTC, FCC, and FBI to favor Trump’s personal interests, it is not only paramount but existential to elect people to federal office who stand ready to oppose this right-wing “soft coup.” We have a chance here to kick out the conservative Sen. Susan Collins and replace her with a progressive. In my opinion, the good that Platner offers outweighs his bad misdeeds, like getting a terrible tattoo with his Marine buddies 20 years ago. To be honest with you, his choice to join the Marines during the Iraq War, or his short stint with a private military contractor should be bigger issues; but, most voters are fine with that. Is your issue the message that electing him would send, because of his tattoo, or is there reason to believe he wouldn’t be a good advocate for positive change?

Rose DuBois

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the idea that Platner himself isn’t at least adjacent to the sort of online spaces that are helping conspiratorial thinking proliferate. His Twitter account recently agreeingly quote tweeted the neo-Nazi Stew Peters (before quickly deleting), and in January he did an interview with Nate Cornacchia, a YouTuber who has spread antisemitic conspiracies (as well as racist anti-Somali ones that led to the ICE surge first in Minneapolis and then in Maine), with Platner saying he is a long time fan. Now sure, we can probably come up with explanations for these sorts of things—it’s pretty much impossible to open Twitter and not see the posts of far right users for example. But it’s one thing if it’s a one off event, it’s another entirely when there’s a growing pattern. I would find the defenses of him far more credible if he did not keep dabbling with the promoters of these kinds of conspiracies. If he’s so serious about affirming his anti-fascist commitments to us, why does this keep happening? At minimum it shows poor judgement and a bit of a cavalier attitude towards bigotry.

There’s been a concentrated effort to paint any concern about the tattoo as being “establishment,” or similar, and I find this to be quite insidious. The fact that the response is to become quite defensive is itself a red flag. People should be outraged that he had it! I mean in many countries having such a tattoo is a crime, and one that can incur jail time, it’s no light thing we can just walk past. If the circumstances were remotely any different, everyone on the left would be crying for a cordon sanitaire against him, but because it’s “our guy” suddenly it’s no big deal to have a Nazi tattoo. The way it’s being downplayed is incredibly discomforting.

I also think everyone is overbaking the idea that this won’t have any negative impacts on his electability. What happens come November when every Republican PAC puts millions behind “Graham Platner is a Nazi” ads? Collins is able to win primarily because she overperforms in Southern Maine, largely in the Portland suburbs and the Midcoast—places that used to be more Republican leaning decades ago. I’m not totally convinced that such hits are going to do zero damage among these kinds of split ticket voters.

I am glad that Platner has been able to move on from the dark place he was in after returning from the Middle East, and that he’s been able to channel that into becoming a community organizer. But that doesn’t mean he needs to be a senator. There are 1.4 million people in Maine, many of whom hold similar progressive values, and I would bet that basically none of them have Nazi tattoos. He’s not somehow singularly equipped for the job. I mean a year ago nobody had heard of him! His entire public profile was conjured up by out of state political consultants last summer! It almost feels like an inversion of the “not me, us” framing of the Bernie years, where somehow only this one man can lead our movement and save us, and the movement is treated as nothing without him.

I think if he actually cared about opposing fascism he would have dropped out. There’s no reason why, if he genuinely espouses the values he claims to hold, he couldn’t continue to fight for them as an organizer locally. I would not have become as skeptical of him as I am if he had done the honorable thing and stepped aside. We could’ve gotten behind someone else.

T. Sinclair

The more we chat, the more I think I’m understanding where we basically disagree, which I’ll get to in a second. While you have doubts about his electability vs. Collins, I would point to the most recent poll out of UNH that has him up by 38 points over Mills in the Democratic primary. While I agree with you that it would be a tight race against Collins, he clearly has the best shot for Democrats from a polling perspective come November. Admit it, if it’s Mills v. Collins, Collins wins by a mile. 

As for his interview with Nate Cornacchia, we both know Platner’s team has made it a priority to reach out to all voters, including those who voted for Trump out of frustration and attempt to bring them over to a working class agenda that isn’t hateful. When one is trying their best to reach audiences that don’t often hear a progressive populist message, one necessarily has to utilize some conservative media platforms. That’s just the name of the game, ugly as it is. Though, I wouldn’t be surprised if his team might end up looking back on some of those decisions and feel sheepish about them.

So, finally, my thoughts on what I see as our basic difference. You are putting your principles first, believing the tattoo is disqualifying due to the symbol’s terrible past (and him keeping it for so long), his campaign team’s bad media platforming, plus a few other times when he made discomforting online comments. You interpret these as red lines based on your principles, so you cannot support him. I respect that. This is my position: pragmatic strategy should come first. We have to take back power. I have written on my belief in revolutionary forgiveness before, and I am more willing to forgive past decisions of candidates if they show that they’ve grown and matured, which I believe Platner has. I also believe in the importance of progressive working class representatives winning office (especially in this time of existential political crisis).

In my opinion, Platner clearly offers the most pro-working families agenda; one that is pro-LGBTQ, pro-labor, pro-choice, anti-racist, anti-fascist, and anti-war. Plus, he is the most electable. So, in that regard, you could say I am prioritizing pragmatism. And I hear you on the concern that he doesn’t have that same “mass movement” feel Bernie offered, but I would also like to point out how well attended his series of town hall meetings have been, how Bernie endorses him, and that maybe sometimes it just takes an unexpected spark to light a larger fire. Maybe he was hand-picked by some labor-friendly political head hunters, I don’t know, and I honestly don’t care. What I care about is replacing Collins with someone who represents working and marginalized folks’ rights and needs in the halls of power. 

As you go into your final thoughts, those are basically mine. This is where we are, and as politically-minded people we ought to look at the terrain and tools we have in front of us, not wish for ones that don’t exist. And, to be honest, I think Platner’s platform is about as good as we could have hoped for in this given time. There’s no changing horses now, even if we wanted to. Unless you think the unpopular Mills or some other dark horse is the way to go. But for me, Platner gives us the best shot at claiming a Senate seat with a truly progressive, working class person, blemishes and all. I really appreciated this chat though, it let me think through a lot and I look forward to your final thoughts.

Rose DuBois

I absolutely would not make a judgement call on an election based on a single poll from one pollster three months before the primary, and eight before the general (though I do tend to agree that Platner is ahead in the primary). Polls aren’t definitive, they’re snapshots, and how voters are feeling can and do change over the course of a campaign. In Texas’s Democratic primary, much of the early polling showed Crockett well ahead of Talarico, a trend that did not continue closer to election day (or ultimately the results). The UNH poll also has some questionable methodology, and other polls also show both a much closer primary and general.

I’d grant that it’s fair to conclude that were the election to be held right now, like this minute, before any real campaigning (on which millions and millions of dollars will be spent), Platner likely has an edge over Mills in terms of beating Collins. But there’s no certainty that that will be the case come November, and I do not think that the maximum damage the Republican campaign machine can do to a candidate like Platner has necessarily been priced into polling yet. I also have zero trust that there aren’t more skeletons in the closet.

I would push back on the idea that were Mills to be the nominee, she is fated to lose. I’ve been fairly bullish on Collins going down this Fall since election day 2024, regardless of who we put against her. We certainly want to ensure that we have the best candidate for the job, but I’m skeptical that taking her down is going to come from a magic trick of a candidate, and more so the basic fundamentals of how Maine’s electorate is changing, the difference in environment between 2020 and 2026, and the profound unpopularity of the current administration in a midterm year. Even when I was excited about Platner I felt that way! The point in my mind was never to find a perfect candidate, but to get the best possible senator. Now that’s certainly not to say I think Mills would be a good nominee, or a good senator—I do not. She has become quite unpopular, she is far too old, and her politics are not remotely suited for the political moment. I’m not arguing for Mills, I’m arguing against Platner.

Responding to your point about the interview, I want to contrast it with the hubbub years ago when Bernie appeared on Joe Rogan. That feels quite different to me, and it was fine for him to do, as you said, in the interest of contesting voters. But the huge glaring difference is that Bernie did not have a giant Nazi tattoo on his chest. Sure, you can make a mistake and apologize for it, but words are cheap, and if you go back and continue to make the same mistake again, you’re making it pretty clear how sincere you are. Since the revelation of the tattoo, he’s done nothing to disabuse us of the notion that he’s still mixed up in circles where antisemitism and right wing conspiracies are common. And if he’s going to be influenced by that sort of thinking, I absolutely do not want him in any position of political power period.

I’d also like to point out that contrary to what the narrative is, Platner’s base very much is not the working class that exists outside of the progressive bubble. It’s more or less the exact same coalition we’re seeing from insurgent candidates elsewhere across the “democratic tea party” moment—combining the classic Bernie base of young and well educated downwardly mobile professionals with middle class suburbanites. Mills does notably better in polling in CD2 and Northern Maine than Platner does, and Platner’s strongest income bracket by far are people making over $100k. And I would be remiss not to point out how incredibly gendered this whole thing is as well.

Which ultimately brings me to your concluding point about principals vs pragmatism, to which I could not disagree with more forcefully. You’re framing this as a blemish that can be looked past in the name of the policies he might support, a bump in the road you feel comfortable ignoring while I do not, completely missing that my central objection to him is that the normalization of Nazism has very real consequences. Yes, I certainly hold anti-fascist principles, and these principles do guide my thinking, but these aren’t coming from abstractions, but a quite concrete and deadly serious reality. 

Nazism is an ideology of death and its continued growth in our society puts me under direct threat. The Nazis persecuted and murdered trans people in the camps, and you can absolutely bet that the current crop of groypers and neo-Nazis that increasingly make up the lower echelons of the Republican Party, given power, would do the same again. Twenty years ago, even having a hint of Nazi connection would end your political career, but the norms around this have become much thinner, and they are breaking. Every little thing that chips away at them makes Nazism a more acceptable part of our political life, and you can be certain that electing someone with an SS tattoo to congress is taking a huge sledgehammer at these norms. Whether intentional or not, it makes it easier for the sort of hatred to spread unabated that puts marginalized people in harm’s way.

What’s in Platner’s heart, whether he’s an anti-fascist or an antisemite, a progressive populist or a secret Nazi, is ultimately immaterial to the problem here. What policies he would or would not support are equally irrelevant to my perspective on him. It’s that his election in and of itself is a danger because of the tattoo, and one many people are brushing past and taking far too lightly.

***

We would like to thank our contributors, T. Sinclair and Rose DuBois for agreeing to partake in such an important conversation. Pine & Roses will continue its coverage of the Maine 2026 races throughout the year. 

The post A Conversation on Graham Platner appeared first on Pine & Roses.

Years ago–during Trump’s first term–I listened as clergy colleagues addressed a committee of the Minnesota legislature in a hearing to determine how the state would respond to Trump’s harsh anti-immigrant policies. One pastor’s testimony was simply a recital of biblical passages concerning love of neighbor and care for the immigrant. Because she was allotted only five minutes, she couldn’t finish the long list of such verses.

Today, even Capitol Hill journalists have caught on that the religious chest-pounding from some in this regime stands in sharp contrast with the rising chorus of defiant activists reciting biblical verses. Earlier in February, one journalist asked the Speaker of the House to address the difference, and Mike Johnson leaped at the chance, declaring that “borders and laws are biblical.” 

What Are Walls for?

Johnson’s statement is true, of course. It’s been a go-to talking point on the religious Right ever since the first Trump administration, when some evangelical scholars rushed to defend cruel and inhumane border policies by stolidly observing that “biblical cities had walls.” 

In fact, as responsible biblical scholars can attest, the most prominent archaeological remains of “biblical” walls today are their massive gate complexes. “City gates in ancient Israel (ca. 1200–586 BCE) were fortified, multi-chambered structures serving as the primary hub for civic, judicial, and economic life. . .”

In other words, one of the primary functions of “biblical walls” and their gates was to open a city, responsibly, to the world around it, as people gathered in and moved through those gates to connect with one another. 

But Johnson’s obsession with “borders” seems to have some other focus: naked partisan ambition, perhaps. Let me stipulate that a morally responsible case can be made for open borders (just a few examples here), but no one on “the Left” is advocating letting violent men swarm into U.S. cities and rampage through neighborhoods, in violation of fundamental Constitutional rights.  That’s official DHS policy you’re thinking of. 

It bears note—again—that according to the DHS’s own records, only a tiny percentage of the people seized off the streets or out of their homes,  thrown into concentration camps, or deported are actually violent criminals—a smaller percentage than in the U.S. population generally.

Love Thy Neighbor—or Not

In contrast, Mike Johnson considers just one passage, Leviticus 19:34, supporting care for the immigrant. He sniffed that “whether [radical Leftists] know it or not, that passage happens to be from the instructions Moses delivered to the Israelites when they were on their journey through the wilderness in Sinai, before they reached their own Promised Land.” 

He apparently means that because that verse occurs before anything like a bordered Israelite state has been established, it can’t be taken seriously as relevant for actual nations today. 

“CONTEXT,” he declared in all caps, “IS CRITICAL.”

If that statement had appeared in an undergraduate’s paper, I would have circled it in red, written “exactly right!” in the margin—and then asked why context mattered not at all in the rest of his exposition. 

Come to think of it, let me take off my tweed jacket, roll up my sleeves, and spend some time with this argument.

. . . 

So, Mike—may I call you Mike? —you go on to explain that verses like that one, or the “Greatest Commandment” of love of neighbor, were “never directed to the government, but to INDIVIDUAL believers.” Somehow you think that lets you, and the masked brutes prowling U.S. cities, off the hook.

Actually, you might pay closer attention to the verse you just quoted, from the King James translation (of course). Note that in its archaic, 16th-century English, the verse interweaves the singular thou and the plural you: “But the stranger that dwelleth with you [plural] shall be unto you [plural] as one born among you [plural], and thou [singular] shalt love him as thyself [singular].” Note, too, that the command continues, as so often in the Torah, with a reason: “for ye [plural] were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your [plural] God.” 

It’s hard, then, to follow your insistence that this command is addressed only to the “individual.” The “thou” here is called on as a member of a people, and called to identify with a collective experience that should draw them into empathy and solidarity with the “stranger in their midst.” 

You’re right, of course, Mike, that this command doesn’t refer to the borders of a nation. In fact, all of the narrative of the Torah takes place before any of “the congregation of the children of Israel” enter the “promised land.” 

That’s really the point. The Torah reads as God’s formation of a people, independent of their dwelling within specific geographical borders. Yes, later in the story (in Numbers 34) God stipulates just what will be the bounds of the land that the people Israel will occupy. But even later, in Deuteronomy 17, God warns the people that if—in envy of the nations around them—they set a king over themselves, they will be courting danger. Not surprisingly, that’s what happens, and the text warns in anticipation that the establishment of the nation’s borders will take place only later, after the people, who are the Lord’s focus here, have taken what the Lord describes as the wrong direction. 

Even later (Deut. 28), Moses issues a lengthy warning to the people (in the future indicative, Mike, which means the warning also functions as a prophecy of what will happen). The people will turn away from the Lord and, in punishment, “the Lord will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth, to swoop down on you like an eagle.” That cruel foreign invader will destroy the nation and disperse its people. Those appear to be retrospective references to the Assyrian conquest in the eighth century B.C.E., which allows scholars to date the main body of Deuteronomy. 

The climax of the book, toward which one could argue the whole of the Torah has been driving, is the solemn, countervailing promise that Moses gives to the assembled people (chapter 30): if—later, after their dispersal “to the ends of the world”—they will turn again in obedience, the Lord “will bring you back . . . into the land that your ancestors possessed” (30:4-5). 

Attentive readers will note some anachronism there. Moses seems to be speaking “over the heads” of the throng assembled before him on the plains of Moab, to address a later generation, living after the Babylonian Exile (sixth century B.C.E.), when the (relatively) more civilized Persian emperor Cyrus the Great allowed exiles to return to Jerusalem. Modern biblical scholarship recognizes the anachronism and recognizes its role in the wider cultural context (there’s that word again) of the ancient near east: a later generation addresses their own situation by revitalizing older tradition and attributing the result to an ancient lawgiver. 

It’s clear from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah that the Torah was made “the law of the land” under Cyrus’s direction. Serious biblical scholars recognize that, discussing the relationship of “Persia and Torah” and describing the final Torah as “the literature of colonial Yehud,” a phrase first popularized by the late, great Norman K. Gottwald. 

At this point, Mike, I’ll admit I don’t seriously expect you to follow this argument, because it’s so uncongenial to your commitments. You are what any contemporary Bible scholar would recognize as a literalist, probably a Fundamentalist, and not a curious one at that. We recognize your type in the classroom pretty early in a semester. You’re not really a student: you’re a provocateur, and no one is going to change your mind.

I hope I’ve not gone too far into the biblical-scholarship weeds. I just want to point out that there is a world of actual study of the Bible in its historical context, which for some of us really is critical. That means recognizing that the final form of the Torah didn’t fall from heaven into Moses’s hands; that it was created centuries later, in solemn retrospect, by people who were trying to discern the divine will in the course of their own history. It wasn’t written to speak to people living on some other continent two and a half millennia later, though centuries of white Christian Protestants have insisted that they are precisely the Bible’s long-awaited subjects. 

More directly to the point of your concern, Mike, the Torah doesn’t imagine that any people can be kept holy through strict border controls. Holiness is a matter of doing right by their neighbors—which is why the single command you discuss appears as part of what scholars call the “holiness code” in the book of Leviticus.

This is a good place to observe that the ways any of us reads the Bible always say more about us than about the Bible. You presume that the Bible provides the blueprint for a white Christian America, to which everyone else must “assimilate”—a line that received an appropriate response from Stephen Colbert. 

You present your neat division of labor as the master-key to interpreting the Bible. “The Bible,” you write, “teaches that God ordained and created four distinct spheres of authority—(1) the individual, (2) the family, (3) the church, and (4) civil government—and each of these spheres is given different responsibilities.” All that “love of neighbor” stuff in the Bible, so popular on the “progressive Left,” applies, you insist, only to the “INDIVIDUAL” (sic); in contrast, you write, “the CIVIL GOVERNMENT is established to faithfully uphold and enforce the law so that order can be maintained in this fallen world, crime can be kept at bay, and people can live peacefully (Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 2:1-2).” 

It’s interesting that you don’t cite any Bible verse  that lays out that division of labor—but not surprising. No such categorization of responsibilities ever appears in scripture. You or, more precisely, the Christian Dominionists on whom you rely made it up. The reason is pretty clear: You prefer a scheme that gives you authority over the rest of us to actual biblical teaching.

Let’s give those verses in Romans more attention than you’ve managed, Mike. (Full disclosure: I’ve written two books on the Letter to the Romans in the context of Roman imperialism, and an additional scholarly essay just on this passage, 13:1-7.) 

There is no divine “calling” or “establishment” or “authorization” of government in these verses; the Greek participle tetagmenai (rendered “ordained” in the King James Version, and “appointed” in the New King James Version) has a restrictive sense and might better be translated “set in rank,” the way a drill sergeant might snap unruly troops to attention. The punitive role of governing authorities is described in the indicative—as a matter of fact—and not as a positive value. 

You seem attracted to the calm assurance in verses 3 and 4 that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil”; so, the one who does right has nothing to fear. To you, as to everyone in this administration and abroad in MAGA world, that means that people like Renée Good and Alex Pretti were self-evidently evil-doers, and their deaths are their own damn fault. 

Leave aside for a moment the breathtaking indifference to brutality expressed in such sentiment. Even at the level of reading ancient biblical texts, this facile moral embrace of whatever the government does fails miserably. 

The apostle Paul knew perfectly well that government authorities were lethally dangerous to innocent people; after all, he declares that “the rulers of this age” crucified the innocent Jesus (1 Corinthians 2:8), and later in that letter, assures his readers that at “the end,” Christ will destroy “all rule and all authority and power” and thus put “all enemies under His feet” (15:24-25). Paul describes his own record of being arrested and beaten by civil authorities as evidence that he is a genuine messenger of God, which is the opposite of how you want us to use the Bible (4:9-13). 

Scholars more chastened by actual history know that reaching for Romans 13 to buttress government authority has been the ploy of governments that have no intention of acting virtuously: Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, any number of other brutal dictatorships since. The passage remains something of an enigma, but over the last half century, scholars have observed the following:

1. Paul thinks his hearers have good reason to be afraid of the civil authorities (the words “terror” in v. 3 and “fear” in v. 7 are the same word in Greek, phobos). That good reason is precisely that the authority “does not bear the sword in vain” (v. 4). (Paul wrote that line at a time when the new emperor, the teenage Nero, was requiring his speechwriters to insist that he had brought peace throughout the Empire without even touching a sword.)
2. The Roman sword remains a constant lethal danger, as Paul affirms earlier in this same letter: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter” (8:36).
3. Precisely because Roman authorities had proven themselves a deadly blunt instrument in putting down tax protests in nearby Puteoli, then again in a mass expulsion of Jews from Rome in a habitual over-reaction to civil unrest, Paul knows his own people are at greatest risk if the civil authorities crack down over any disquiet. 
4. And that’s why, in unfortunately stereotyped language, Paul here urged his (non-Jewish) readers to keep their heads down and their noses clean—advice he himself usually did not practice. 

The Bible for Thee, Not for Me

All of this is relevant historical context, yet none of it seems to matter to you, Mike, so I want to ask a few more questions.

If you took seriously the division you outlined between biblical instructions for “the individual” and those for “civil authorities”—why wouldn’t you accept the first as decisive for yourself?  Sure, you’ve been elected to the House, and your colleagues have made you Speaker, but if you had known what the Bible commanded you as an individual, why would you ever have sought public office? Indeed, why would you aspire to be an “agent of wrath,” instead of a righteous lover of mercy, as the Bible does expressly command? 

It seems to me that no Bible verse or biblical commentator is quite as important for your “theology” as the logic of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, a favorite of self-styled right-wing intellectuals like Peter Thiel (and his protegé J. D. Vance). For Schmitt, what made a nation was sovereignty, and what constituted sovereignty was the power to declare a state of exception to the laws that everyone else had to follow. That’s why you want to be in government, Mike—especially in this government, where declaring national emergencies is the most convenient way to ignore Congress, the courts, and the Constitution.

And why else, Mike, would you reach for the Bible to explain your eager participation in this regime? Even if you were right about the Bible’s authorization of government as God’s “agent of wrath,”  nobody asked you to serve the Bible. 

Instead, you were asked to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 

I know that’s loaded with all sorts of language you’d prefer was not there: “domestic Tranquility”? “general Welfare”? “the Blessings of Liberty”? It’s pretty obvious you would rather be doling out punishment to “bad guys,” so you prefer to think that’s what the Bible authorizes you to do. 

In 1964, Marshall McLuhan taught us to recognize how often “the medium is the message.” The principle has no more apt illustration than you addressing a roomful of journalists and, over their heads, the American people, to tell us that the Bible authorizes you and your Republican colleagues to ignore the basic morality and decency to which so many of us feel bound. That moment—the medium of your self-righteous little Bible study—is the message you find in the Bible: you and your people decide, we obey. 

Fantasies of self-righteousness and the divine power to punish wicked others, fed by apocalyptic texts in the Bible, are rife in the present regime. More attentive readers of Revelation, or the prophecy in Matthew 25, will notice that no government officials, no military commanders appear in biblical visions of heaven, or heaven on earth. It is clear enough from the Beatitudes Jesus pronounces in Matthew 5 that the blessed are not those who have used force to assert their will but the poor in spirit, the meek, those who hunger for justice, those who make peace.

Don’t worry, Mike–there’s still time to read up.  

The post The Bible and the Border: Mike Johnson Explains It All (or Does He?) appeared first on DSA Religious Socialism.

March 2026 Newsletter

This is the monthly newsletter by the Montgomery County Branch of the Metro DC Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (MoCo DSA).

•  Interested in building a socialist future? Join DSA.
• Want up-to-the-minute updates? Follow us on Instagram, Bluesky, Twitter, and Facebook.
• Sign up for weekly updates (and see the archives) from Metro DC DSA.

Take Action

• Data centers require enormous amounts of power from local grids around the clock and constant cooling with local water supplies. Tell the Montgomery County Council to put a moratorium on data centers.
• Takoma Park has some of the strongest renter protections in Montgomery County, thanks to its rent stabilization ordinance. But the ordinance is under threat. Sign your name if you agree that Takoma Park should not allow landlords to get even richer on the backs of renters—the very people who can afford it the least.
• Maryland law denies teachers, librarians, and other public workers in the state the right to strike. That means residents who provide some of the most important care to our community don’t have access to organized labor’s most powerful tool—the strike. HB 1492 would give teachers and public workers the right to strike. Learn how you can support this critical bill.

Upcoming Events

• Saturday, March 7th – Canvass for Gabriel Acevero and Josie Caballero. Show MoCo that DSA stands with our endorsed candidates by turning up and turning out to knock on our neighbors’ doors. Gabe and Josie support teachers and working families, and that’s why we support them. Register to canvass.
• Saturday, March 7th – Join a Know Your Rights Canvass in Montgomery Village with MoCo IRC. You must request to participate here. The event is not open to the public.
• Saturday, March 14th – MoCo DSA Monthly General Body Meeting. Join us in person at the Gaithersburg Library or via Zoom for our monthly meeting to get plugged into the latest with MoCo DSA. If you’re brand new to DSA, this meeting is open to the public.
• Saturday, March 21 – MoCo DSA March Social. Socialize with fellow MoCo comrades at the Mayan Monkey Brewery in Gaithersburg. Tell us if you plan to attend! (P.S. We will be canvassing for our candidates that afternoon. Stay tuned for details).
• Looking to connect with comrades in DSA in a casual setting? We will be launching the MoCo DSA weekly coffee social in the coming weeks. More details to come!

MoCo Briefs

MoCo DSA in Annapolis

On February 16, we went to Annapolis to urge state legislators to support just cause eviction, end state investments in the imperial war machine and genocide, and stop collaborations with ICE.

Electoral 

In February, our campaign work for Gabe Acevero, Josie Caballero, and Izola Shaw kicked into high gear. Between phonebanking, canvassing in Rockville and Takoma Park, and a fundraiser at Clear Skies Meadery, MoCo DSA showed up for the candidates campaigning for a more just Montgomery County and Maryland.

Survey

We want to know what content you’re interested in! Fill out this brief survey to share your thoughts.

Interested in building a socialist future? Join DSA

The post Moco DSA March Newsletter appeared first on Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America.

By Dylan

The fundamental case for corporate accountability rests on the principle that significant power—whether political or economic—must be subject to ethical scrutiny. In a globalized economy, the actions of large-scale enterprises have profound consequences for the communities and environments in which they operate. Consider the devastating impact that corporations like Union Carbide, Nestlé, Monsanto, and Halliburton have had on the environment and human lives.¹ When a corporation’s pursuit of profit intersects with regions marked by conflict, repressive governance, economic injustice, or social inequality, the company ceases to be a neutral bystander and instead becomes an active participant in the local landscape. If an organization benefits from or reinforces systems that result in human suffering or environmental harm, it incurs a moral responsibility that transcends simple legal compliance. Therefore, corporate accountability is not merely a regulatory preference but a necessary safeguard to ensure that private interests do not supersede human rights and dignity. In the absence of a unified global authority to govern these interactions, public awareness and ethical pressure serve as essential tools for aligning corporate behavior with the broader interests of humanity.

One of the most troubling, contemporary, examples of a lack of corporate accountability involves the Chevron Corporation. While its economic power and technological capacity are often framed as engines of development, Chevron’s operations in Israel and Venezuela reveal a more troubling dimension of corporate involvement in human rights abuses. In both cases, Chevron’s activities raise serious concerns regarding complicity, accountability, and the exploitation of people in politically volatile environments by non-state actors.

In Israel, Chevron’s involvement in the Tamar and Leviathan offshore natural gas fields has positioned the company as a critical contributor to the country’s energy infrastructure.² These gas fields supply a substantial portion of Israel’s electricity, thereby reinforcing the operational capacity of the Israeli state. While energy development is frequently presented as politically neutral, such claims become untenable when corporate profits are closely intertwined with prolonged military occupation and structural inequality. Revenues generated from Chevron-operated gas fields flow directly into the Israeli economy and, by extension, support state institutions that administer and enforce policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. As a result, Chevron’s presence cannot be separated from the broader political context in which systematic restrictions on Palestinian movement, economic activity, and self-determination persist.

Furthermore, Chevron’s stake in regional energy infrastructure, including gas pipelines operating in the eastern Mediterranean, intersects with security policies that have restricted Gazan’s maritime access. According to Investor Advocates for Social Justice:

• “The Company holds a partial stake in the East Mediterranean Gas pipeline, which transports gas from Israel to Egypt along the coast of the Gaza Strip. Under international law, including the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions, economic activity in occupied territory without the agreement of the affected population is considered unlawful and may constitute “pillage,” a war crime. The pipeline is also closely linked to Israel’s longstanding naval blockade of Gaza, which restricts Palestinian maritime access and has had a devastating impact on the region’s economy since 2009.”³

Although Chevron does not directly administer these policies, its operations benefit from and reinforce a system sustained through coercive state power. In this respect, Chevron exemplifies how corporations become embedded within structures of control and repression while maintaining formal distance from their consequences.

Chevron’s role in Venezuela also raises concerns about corporate ethics and humanitarian responsibility. The oil giant continues to operate in Venezuela even as the United States government has sanctioned the Caribbean nation’s economy. According to a report last year by EuroNews,

• “Chevron’s operations are structured so that cash flows and profits do not directly benefit PDVSA (Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas company) or the Venezuelan state under current sanctions licences….The Venezuelan government does not receive fresh revenue from these operations — no dividends, no budget income, no direct cash transfers….US officials argue that Chevron’s continued presence actually strengthens sanctions enforcement rather than undermining it.”⁴

Basically, Chevron functions as the sanctions arm of the US government by not having to pay taxes or royalties to the Venezuelan government. Add in that Venezuela must sell its oil abroad for debt relief and it becomes clear that the country and its people are being exploited by state and non-state actors.⁵

This means that Chevron’s ongoing oil production in Venezuela has not translated into meaningful improvements in living conditions for Venezuelans experiencing shortages of food, medicine, and basic services due to U.S. sanctions. As two economists at the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted:

• “It is important to emphasize that nearly all of the foreign exchange that is needed to import medicine, food, medical equipment, spare parts and equipment needed for electricity generation, water systems, or transportation, is received by the Venezuelan economy through the government’s revenue from the export of oil. Thus, any sanctions that reduce export earnings, and therefore government revenue, thereby reduce the imports of these essential and, in many cases, life-saving goods.”⁶

Chevron has also faced numerous allegations of failing to comply with mandated cleanups, leading everyday, working-class people to bear the social and economic costs.⁷ Their privileged status highlights a recurring pattern in global energy politics: corporations maintain access to strategic resources while civilian populations suffer.

With the Trump administration’s recent coup against Venezuela’s government, Chevron stands first in line to profit from Trump’s oil grab as the only U.S. company currently operating in Venezuela.⁸ This has ramifications for Americans as well. If Venezuelan oil production is increased, it is likely that more Venezuelan heavy crude oil would be imported by U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, largely located where Black, Latino, Indigenous, and low-income communities are already exposed to fossil fuel pollution.^9,10

Boycotting Chevron should therefore be understood not as an isolated consumer choice, but as part of a broader effort to impose ethical constraints on corporate behavior within the international system. Historically, boycotts have functioned as tools to expose moral contradictions, mobilize public awareness, and pressure powerful institutions resistant to reform. Consider the progressive, humanitarian, impacts of the Montgomery bus boycott or international divestment from South Africa’s apartheid regime.¹¹ In the absence of effective international regulation of corporations, public accountability becomes one of the few remaining mechanisms for challenging corporate complicity in systemic injustice.

Ultimately, Chevron’s involvement in Israel and Venezuela illustrates a wider failure to reconcile profit-driven enterprise with ethical responsibility. A boycott, while limited in scope, signals a refusal to normalize corporate practices that benefit from occupation, repression, inequality, and human suffering. In doing so, it affirms the principle that economic—like political—power, must be subject to moral scrutiny.

Footnotes:

1. CorpWatch: The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers

2. AFSC: Chevron Fuels Israeli Apartheid and War Crimes Additionally

3. Investor Advocates for Social Justice: Proposed Human Rights Policy Implementation

4. EuroNews: Why Chevron still operates in Venezuela despite US sanctions

5. Venezuelanalysis: Chevron Back in Venezuela, A Tale of US Imperialist Arrogance

6. CEPR: Economics Sanctions as Collective Punishment: The Case of Venezuela

7. AmazonWatch: Chevron’s Global Record of Denial and Destruction

8. USPCR: From Palestine to Venezuela, Chevron Profits From U.S. Imperialism

9. S&P Global: US Gulf Coast refiners seen benefiting from increased use of heavy Venezuelan crude

10. PBS/NPR: Oil refineries release lots of water pollution near communities of color, data show

11. Ethical Consumer: History of Successful Boycotts