Progressives Saw Wins in DNC, But Battle for the Future of the Party Continues

This summer, attendees who were punctual enough to make it into the 9:00 am Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) resolutions meeting at its August convening in Texas were treated to an unusual display: In a humdrum corner of the Austin Marriott Downtown, the DNC resolutions committee voted to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And, in a move that went against the DNC’s habit of blocking any resolution viewed as critical of Israel, the committee also voted to reaffirm its commitment to the Leahy Laws, which bar the U.S. government from supplying weapons to governments violating human rights abroad.

The resolutions committee is largely known for bland resolutions with titles like “Resolution Recognizing the Work and Contributions of the California Young Democrats” or “Resolution Reclaiming the American Promise.” That is, they are statements, sometimes grand and sometimes small, that are meant to be read as aspirational; paragraphs devoted to nice-to-haves in a world where Democrats could wave a magic wand and make it just-so.

Recently, though, the DNC resolutions committee has become a site of contention between the party’s corporate-friendly establishment and its progressive wing. While some left-leaning activists have contested the party establishment’s power in Democratic primaries around the country, others have advanced on the DNC itself in a quest to reform the party apparatus to be more accommodating toward (and maybe even supportive of) progressive policy.

This tension was on full display at this year’s summer meeting in Austin, Texas. Progressive DNC members, many of whom have organized in ad hoc formations for years within the DNC, put forward two measures intended to put the party on the record about two of the biggest hot-button issues for progressives today: the genocide in Gaza and abolishing ICE.

This was not the first time that progressives have advanced resolutions to address these issues. In recent sessions, DNC members have introduced resolutions explicitly calling for an end to AIPAC funding in Democratic primaries and resolutions calling for conditions on military aid to Israel. These, however, have routinely failed to secure enough votes on the resolutions committee, and have occasionally been blocked or procedurally undermined by DNC Chair Ken Martin.

Resolutions condemning the U.S.-Israel relationship have been especially opposed by the DNC’s establishment-friendly majority. A year ago, at the DNC’s 2025 summer meeting, the resolutions committee blocked a measure that would have called for an arms embargo against Israel, opting instead for a watered-down alternative pushed by Martin that called only for unrestricted humanitarian aid into Gaza and a vague commitment to a two-state solution.

In that instance, Martin used a maneuver that he has deployed more than once to frustrate progressive activists’ attempts to pass more left-leaning resolutions: He authored and introduced a resolution that appeared to address the same issue, but which committed the DNC to a substantially less radical course of action than the original resolution. Martin’s resolution was agendized earlier in the committee meeting and passed by unanimous consent. Then, when the more radical resolution came up for a vote, committee members rebuked the body for taking up an issue that had already been addressed by Martin’s resolution, even though the two committed the DNC to very different courses of action.

Progressive victories during this summer’s meeting in Austin were all the more remarkable because Martin again leaned on this tactic, but unsuccessfully. A “Resolution Condemning the Trump Administration’s Reckless and Deadly Approach to Immigration Enforcement” was the third agendized item in the resolutions committee and was passed again by a unanimous voice vote. This resolution, notably, stopped short of calling for a permanent end to ICE.

When the resolution calling for ICE’s abolition came up much later in the committee session, a few members argued for voting against the resolution on the basis that the issue had already been settled by the body. A majority of committee members, though, pressed the issue, leading to a rare display of open disagreement on the resolutions committee. In the end, the vote was tallied individually and the resolution was adopted, with 25 members in favor and 12 opposed.

Elsewhere on the agenda, progressives scored a more modest victory, with the body unanimously passing a resolution calling for the Democratic Party to reaffirm its commitment to the Leahy Laws. The Leahy Laws, named for former Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, bar U.S. arms sales to foreign security forces that commit human rights abuses. The laws have been applied numerous times by Congress since their adoption in 1997, but have never been invoked to block military aid to Israel. Critics of Israel’s conduct have long argued that the myriad, exhaustively documented cases of human rights abuses by Israel clearly disqualify the country from receiving U.S. aid under the Leahy Laws. However, the U.S. has never blocked arms sales to Israel under the Leahy laws.

The Leahy Laws resolution, submitted by Michele Johnson of Louisiana, did not explicitly name Israel in its text. In her motivating speech on the floor, Johnson recalled an experience she had in Equatorial Guinea to justify the importance of upholding the Leahy Laws and did not mention Israel. This represents a new strategic tack for progressives inside the DNC, who have long been frustrated in their attempts to pass resolutions more overtly critical of the U.S.-Israel relationship. While resolutions that have cited Israel or AIPAC by name in the past have been blocked by the larger DNC, progressives within the party may have hit on an indirect route to eventually come to a more full throated critique of the U.S.-Israel relationship. The unanimous passage of the Leahy Laws resolution sets progressive activists up to raise the issue again in forthcoming DNC meetings.

While the passage of these resolutions marks a clear win for progressive activists inside the party, it’s important to zoom out from the DNC’s procedural arcana and ask whether these battles inside the DNC have the power to truly push the party itself to the left. For much of 2026, the progressive and corporatist wings of the Democratic Party have been in open conflict. Victories by progressive and democratic socialist candidates in a slew of state primaries have set up critical tests for the left flank of the party in November, where left-leaning candidates will have to prove their mettle against Republicans. Some within the Democratic establishment have been vocal about their concerns that progressive Democrats have hampered the party’s chances to take back the House or Senate in the midterms by adopting what they deem “radical” policy positions. Others in the Democratic Party have gone even further, condemning the avowed ideology of their fellow caucus members, in an apparent attempt to outflank their Republican colleagues on the right.

There isn’t much evidence for a causal relationship between what the DNC committee votes to support and the policies that Democratic candidates actually champion, nor is there much proof that DNC resolutions are an effective lever for pressuring the party’s risk-averse leaders into encouraging elected Democrats to embrace progressive policy.

Efforts by progressive activists within the party, then, should be seen less as an effort aimed at directly compelling lawmakers to change course, and more as another front in the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. The DNC is one of the few bodies that purports to stand for the party as a whole, and the policy that the DNC promulgates is part of how the Democratic Party communicates its ideals to voters, especially in the years between presidential cycles. Winning these fights now, while the media gaze is on the midterms and the coming 2028 presidential horse race, could still shore up progressives’ position as the presidential primary approaches.

By then, any Democrat running for president who wants to stake out a position to the right of what the DNC itself has adopted on the Leahy Laws and immigration may have to explain why they’re out of step with their own party committee. In this sense, activists inside the DNC are contributing in a small way to larger reform efforts within the Democratic Party.