Democratic socialist in Maryland legislature ready to ‘fight like hell,' says party moving in his direction
Del. Gabe Acevero, a 34-year-old member of the Democratic Socialists of America, represents Montgomery County in the Maryland General Assembly. He was first elected in 2018 — long before Zohran Mamdani and Omar Fateh gained national attention for winning the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City and an endorsement from the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minneapolis' mayoral race, respectively.
As the electorate becomes younger and more progressive, Acevero said that establishment Democrats should 'be cognizant' of what that constituency wants if it plans to win elections.
'If you look at where our base, where our constituency and where America is trending, we have to focus on working-class issues — from housing to socioeconomic, gender, environmental, justice — and we can't just continue to provide lip service as a party,' he said. 'We have to fight like hell, not just for the policies, but for workers and the working class. And that's what I've been committed to in the legislature and will continue to do so.'
Del. Matt Morgan, a Republican from St. Mary's County, said he knows Acevero well and considers him 'a nice guy.' He said it's 'undeniable' that the Democratic Party is shifting in Acevero's direction. And, in fact, 'it's already there,' Morgan said.
He thinks the push into socialism is ultimately a losing proposition for Maryland voters.
'Socialism has a 100% failure rate. The more it's implemented in Maryland, the more people are going to leave,' Morgan said.
Recent elections in New York and Minnesota are perhaps indications that the word 'socialism' does not carry the same negative connotation among voters today — especially among Generation Z and younger millennials born after the Cold War, according to Flavio Hickel, an associate professor of political science at Washington College. These voters, and others who increasingly identify as 'working class,' believe Democrats 'need to offer a more ambitious, aggressive, and left-leaning' policy vision, Hickel told The Baltimore Sun on Wednesday.
'I don't think mainstream Democrats would regard what [Acevero] said as probably all that offensive or problematic,' Hickel said. 'They just might differ in sort of, the tactics — how far, how quick and how aggressively do we pursue progressive change?'
A staff member for the Maryland Democratic Party did not immediately respond to The Sun's request for comment on Acevero's claims that Democrats are moving in his direction.
What a Democratic socialist wants in Maryland
Acevero's campaign platform has often leaned progressive: police and criminal justice reform, a $15-per-hour minimum wage, single-payer Medicare For All, universal basic income, higher taxes for the wealthy, and support for kids aging out of the foster care system.
'I think, at the time, a lot of people were trying to, essentially, discourage Democratic voters in District 39 from voting for me, because [they thought], 'these are like radical socialist policies,'' said Acevero. 'In actuality, what they are are popular policies that working people in our state want to see enacted, and so we ran a — similar to Zohran [Mamdani] — a people-powered campaign.'
Like Mamdani, Acevero has been vocal in his support of Palestinians in the Gaza war against Israel during his time in the state legislature.
In 2025, he introduced the Not On Our Dime Act, which would have required the Maryland Secretary of State to remove nonprofit organizations from the state's Registry of Charitable Solicitation if they knowingly engage in unauthorized support of Israeli settlement activity. That bill was heard in the House Judiciary Committee, but not debated on the floor.
Acevero also sponsored a joint resolution in 2024 that would have conveyed to Maryland's congressional delegation that the General Assembly supports a long-term ceasefire in Israel and Palestine. The joint resolution was heard in the Rules and Executive Nominations Committee, but did not advance further.
'I've been very unapologetic'
Acevero told The Sun that Democrats 'weren't particularly fond of' him because, prior to his election in 2018, he was an activist with a penchant for holding politicians in both parties accountable.
'I wasn't the darling of the establishment, and I certainly wasn't embraced by the establishment Democrats in District 39,' he said. 'I unseated a two-term incumbent, and I ran on a working-class, progressive agenda that some folks tried to weaponize … using the whole 'Red Scare Socialism' scare tactic.'
Acevero alleges establishment figures later hand-picked a candidate to beat him in the 2022 primary, calling his policies 'pie in the sky' or 'radical.' Still, he won.
Though he's rounding out his second term, Acevero still isn't necessarily 'embraced' by other Democrats in the General Assembly. Often when he participates in floor debates, he is jeered and his comments — occasionally incendiary — are often called into question.
In 2021, he offered amendments to a package of major police reform bills because he felt the settled policy didn't go far enough. Acevero voted against the Democratic redistricting plan later that year because he says he doesn't believe in gerrymandering. He's publicly critical of criminal justice bills that establish mandatory minimum sentences, of which he said: 'Time and again, civil rights organizations have pointed out … it ties judges' hands, but it also disproportionately impacts, you know, Black and Latino people.'
'I've been very unapologetic about the policies that I advocate for and who I am, because I think it's important,' he said, adding that efforts to 'delegitimize Democratic Socialists and their policies [have] never worked.'
-----------------
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, Democrats are held captive by extremes. Americans need a new party.
Does America need a viable third political party? Republicans and Democrats alike sound off – and actually agreed on something – in our latest Opinion Forum. In June – which yes, feels like a lifetime ago – billionaire and former first buddy Elon Musk began floating the idea of an "America Party" on the social media platform he's colonized. Originally a response to President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Musk viewed as an "insane spending bill," this new third party would "actually represent the 80% in the middle" and give voters back their "freedom." It's an interesting idea – and not necessarily new. America, as we're reminded every general election, does have more than two political parties, but those splintered factions rarely result in anything of consequence. Instead, our politics are an endless ping-pong match between Republicans and Democrats – which many Americans increasingly view as two sides of the same coin. So is a true multiparty system the way forward? And is Musk, as divisive as he is, the one to lead it? Those were some of the questions we asked USA TODAY readers for our latest Forum. We heard people from each political party and found some surprising consensus. Read their responses below. A third party isn't enough. America needs an entirely new system. America doesn't just need a third party – it needs a full-spectrum awakening. The system we're living in isn't just outdated ‒ it's misaligned with the reality of who we are today. Tradition has its place, but clinging to it out of habit keeps us locked into patterns that no longer serve us. The problems we face now are wildly different from those of the past, so why are we still trying to solve them with yesterday's blueprints? We need more than another political faction; we need a radical reimagining of how representation works. For too long, our politics have been stuck in black-and-white thinking: left or right, red or blue, us versus them. The idea that one person – usually male, usually from a singular political perspective – can fully represent an entire nation is outdated. Lived experience matters. And no matter how well-intentioned he may be, a man cannot truly fight for women the way a woman can. The same goes in reverse. Each brings something vital to the table, and that's why America needs more than just a third party – it needs a shared leadership model. Your Turn: President Trump, I supported you. Release the Epstein list – or resign. | Opinion Forum Imagine a presidency not defined by solo power but co-led by two individuals with contrasting yet complementary identities ‒ say, a woman and a man from different ideological spaces. Together, they could challenge groupthink, broaden empathy and offer layered approaches to complex issues. Conflict wouldn't be avoided ‒ it'd be used as a strength to build deeper solutions. Our most marginalized voices wouldn't be tokens ‒ they'd have champions on both sides. Sure, this idea may cause some readers to flip their lids. But history has shown us that progress doesn't come wrapped in comfort. It comes when someone says 'What if?' and dares to sketch it out loud. As for Elon Musk? He didn't build with a brain ‒ he built with money. He footed bills and took credit. He couldn't hold a thought together or support his own child for being themselves. That's not genius. That's cowardice. Power without empathy is a threat, not a solution. We don't need leaders who smile for the cameras while people suffer. We need firewalls, not figureheads. If you can't fight for people without cash behind them, you don't get to represent any of us. The Republican Party is consumed by extremism and fear tactics. The Democratic Party is fractured and too often indecisive. Both chase headlines while families struggle, health care costs explode and trust erodes. Neither party centers everyday people, and that's the core failure. — Kayleisha Miller, Coal Township, Pennsylvania Our political parties have been lost to oligarchs. We need a shake-up. We need a viable third party to shake up the status quo. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are being held hostage by the extreme right and left of their parties. We need a party that is not beholden to American oligarchs. It needs to govern with common sense and realize that compromise is not a four-letter word. As a nation, we used to value these traits. Now it's a take-no-hostage era. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ You can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. Musk is one of the oligarchs of the United States. He is a businessman whose sole raison d'être is to make a profit. One cannot run a nation like one runs a company. Both parties are being held captive by the extreme right and left wings of their parties. The Democrats have lost their focus on the issues that mean the most to the people. They have forgotten who the working people are in this nation. They need to realize people don't want a cradle-to-grave nanny state. The Republicans have come under the spell of authoritarian governance. As much as they profess to care about the working people, they care more about the American oligarchs. — Paul Tonello, Sparks, Nevada If we had better people in power, two parties would be enough. But we don't. If there were representatives who would vote to represent the people who elected them on different issues, rather than always being in lockstep, a two-party system works very well. A multiparty system that requires different coalitions on different issues would work better than what is happening in Congress. I believe that fiscal responsibility, compassion for those in need, smaller government and stewardship of national assets would win the greatest coalition's vote. Musk's resources are important, but getting moderates from each party to be involved would be more important. Also, getting more people who are not currently involved in politics could make it very powerful. Neither party is doing anything to make the future better for our children and grandchildren. I wish we had good people instead of people who thrive on power and ego. — LaMar Stephenson, Spanish Fork, Utah It's a matter of when, not if, a third party will emerge in America The existing two-party system limits the people's choices. They coexist in a symbiotic relationship. Much like defense and plaintiff attorneys. They need each other to exist. Loyalty among the members is first to their respective party, not the Constitution. In my sphere of connections across all of America, I have yet to meet a person who does not believe a third party is a necessity. It is my belief that the time of a two-party system has passed. A new political system is a necessity. If we have a third option, more fiscally conservative and socially moderate, this country will be better served. When, not if, this happens, the legacy parties might wake up and realize they have lost touch with the American system. It is incumbent on the news media, which has also polarized, to begin an honest reporting of this movement. A third party should be fiscally conservative and socially moderate, protecting the future of America and not buying votes by borrowing from the future. The youth of America will wake up and align with a new model. Musk has the resources to overcome the start-up challenges of a viable third party. He has clearly shown his commitment to improving government and its misdirected leadership. But he is not the person to lead the party. We need a charismatic younger leader who comes from the heartland, has been in the actual world and served his country. Service in the military is important. It's too easy to place young Americans in harm's way when they have not also made that choice. Look at how few elected officials have served or have children in service. Service can take many forms that reflect their passion for serving the United States. The two parties exist to support each other. Loyalty by their members is to the party, not the country. Congress demands this loyalty. Leadership punishes those with loyalty to country above party. — Bob Jones, Dadeville, Alabama We need a political party that isn't beholden to the rich The present political parties are beholden to the rich. We need a party that also hears the people. A better party would focus on middle-class needs, education, helping college kids with their future, present and past college bills. It would focus on the environment and upholding and advancing the ideals of the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty the pursuit of happiness and equality for all. We need a party that has a little nuance on issues and looks for ways to solve problems with compromise. Our young people need affordable housing. Medical care should not be tied to employment. And we need to restore the sense of community that we have lost in some places ‒ a sense that there is something greater than me. Musk is not the person to lead a third party. He has done too much damage by reelecting President Donald Trump and with DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. I suppose his money could be useful. The Republican Party is firmly under the control of Trump. He is corrupt, cruel and embraces chaos. The GOP should be renamed the CCCP. Most of the Democratic leaders do not know how to resist Trump. There needs to be a moral rebirth in our nation. Many are morally blind to Trump and his actions. Who are we? What does it mean to be an American? What is right and wrong? Many are under the influence of conspiracy theories and do not realize that they are being played for money. — Rick Jones, Mount Gilead, Ohio You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.


NBC News
24 minutes ago
- NBC News
Democratic governors search for a balance between fighting and working with Trump
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Linda McMahon and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have largely been skewered by Democrats for the way they have run President Donald Trump's Education and Health departments. But over the weekend at a bipartisan summit of governors in Colorado Springs, they received a distinctly warm welcome — including from the Democrats on hand. Instead of pressing McMahon on her plans to eliminate the Education Department, a move that will substantially affect state budgets, Democrats who attended the National Governors Association meeting in the mountain foothills of Colorado offered praise to McMahon during a Friday session over the Trump administration's decision to release billions in education funding it had withheld. And they peppered her with questions about students' mental health, early childhood education and artificial intelligence — areas where they might be able to find common ground. On Saturday, Kennedy, whose stances on vaccines have drawn fierce criticism, held court with a group of Democratic governors, assuring them that he did not want to see budget cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services. These conciliatory moments, which occurred throughout the NGA's summer meeting, underscored the bind Democrats have found themselves in during Trump's second term: weighing when to fight back against the administration, as the base is pushing for, and when to work with it to benefit their constituents. It's a balancing act that's particularly acute at the state level. While Democrats are out of power in Washington, the party's governors have much more authority. And governors in particular have prided themselves on searching for common ground, even in a heated political environment — a core purpose of the NGA. Still, a growing number of Democrats argue that calls for bipartisanship do not meet the current moment. Govs. Tim Walz of Minnesota and Laura Kelly of Kansas were among several Democrats who did not attend the summit. All told, seven Democratic governors and 11 Republican governors came for at least part of the weekend, the NGA said, while three governors attended virtually. Walz and Kelly, as The Atlantic first reported, declined to renew their NGA membership dues for the upcoming fiscal year, due to broader frustrations with how the group has approached the Trump administration. A source familiar with the governors' thinking said that Walz's and Kelly's feelings were 'a view held by more than just these two governors' and were a product of 'frustration' that the NGA 'had tied its own hands' by not taking a more active role in advocating for states and governors amid Trump's attacks. 'If we can't agree on standing up for states' rights, we're passively endorsing what the president is doing,' the source said. During his second term, Trump has defied or threatened many Democratic-led states. Trump deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies, despite objections from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump also froze federal funds for a child nutrition program in Maine after he clashed with Gov. Janet Mills over an issue related to transgender athletes. (The Trump administration later halted the freeze.) Newsom and Mills also did not attend the summit. 'We can't just walk away' Several Democratic governors who attended the weekend meeting expressed sympathy for Walz's and Kelly's decision. They also highlighted the importance of finding common ground with their political adversaries, suggesting that it remained a better option to try to win influence with them instead of not showing up. 'The promise that I made to the people of Maryland when the Trump administration came on board was that I will work with anyone, but I will bow down to no one,' Maryland's Democratic Gov. Wes Moore said during a session with reporters at the summit in response to a question from NBC News. 'But there's a clear understanding and a clear desire to be able to work with anybody to make sure that the people of my state and the people for all of our states are getting the support that they need. And I think one of the benefits of this weekend was, you know, we got a chance to sit down with Secretary Kennedy, that we got a chance to actually sit down with Secretary McMahon,' added Moore, who was elected vice char of the NGA over the weekend. He noted that previously he had not had the chance to do so in the first seven months of Trump's second term. 'I actually think it was a real benefit,' Moore said. Moore is no stranger to fighting with the administration: Most recently, he has accused Trump of denying his state federal disaster assistance for flooding in Maryland in May. Moore said he'd spoken with Walz and Kelly, calling their frustrations 'justified.' But he added that the NGA 'is never going to be either the cheerleader nor the heckler of a federal administration.' Hawaii's Democratic Gov. Josh Green, a physician who has blamed Kennedy for measles outbreaks, said he had a 'valuable' private meeting with the health secretary that lasted an hour. 'I have some deep ideological differences with Secretary Kennedy,' Green said in an interview with NBC News. But he added that creating a collaborative environment with Kennedy and McMahon helped him explain to them why he felt 'things have to happen to protect vulnerable people.' Green said that he and Kennedy discussed how governors could most effectively access the $50 billion rural hospital fund that was included in the massive tax cut and spending bill Trump recently signed into law. 'We can't just walk away, in my opinion,' Green said. 'Even though I'll keep pushing back on any changes to the vaccine schedule … I will also be able to take some advantage of the relationships.' Green also said he had 'deep disagreements' with McMahon, but that he felt it remained important to maintain a dialogue. 'Do I have concerns about working with the secretary of education?' Green said. 'Of course I do, but I would have deeper concerns if there was no one that could speak up for what I feel is about half of the country.' Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat whose term as NGA chair ended this weekend, said he invited Kennedy and McMahon in particular because governors had expressed to him that health care and education were two of the top issues they wanted to address during the event. 'I think these times call for the kind of bipartisan work of the NGA more than ever before. The American people want progress,' Polis said. 'And that only comes when the politicians stop fighting over their party labels and work together to achieve real outcomes that actually matter in people's lives.' Disagreements remain Democratic governors still made their disagreements with Republicans clear at the summit. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy was among several Democratic governors to lambast the 'big, beautiful bill' and its cuts to Medicaid and food assistance. And a cadre of Democratic governors slammed Texas Republicans' plans to redraw its congressional maps ahead of schedule in an effort to help the GOP protect its narrow House majority in next year's midterm elections. In an emailed statement in response to questions from NBC News, NGA spokesperson Eric Wohlschlegel said that 'the record participation and support of NGA isn't because governors avoid tough topics; it's because NGA is one of the few places where they can cut through the noise and collectively focus on what works.' 'It's critical in a political climate where so many issues become zero-sum fights, NGA provides something increasingly rare: a forum for real, results-driven, bipartisan problem-solving. That's why governors keep showing up,' Wohlschlegel added. Green, Hawaii's governor, said that approach paid off — even though 'sometimes it gives me heartburn.'


New York Times
24 minutes ago
- New York Times
November 2026 Is Everything
I guess we're going to be talking about Zohran Mamdani for every hour of every day for the foreseeable future, and I can certainly see why. A 33-year-old political larva, he's nonetheless well positioned to become mayor of the most populous and consequential city in the most powerful country on Earth. He's a great story and he matters. Hugely. But he's no harbinger. No template. Mamdani's fate in November 2025 will hold few clues and limited lessons for Democrats in November 2026, because New York City is not the United States. And we can't afford to overlook that, because November 2026 is everything. We also can't forget that the furor surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case will grow old, and probably few among the MAGA faithful will abandon President Trump over it. We can't overinterpret national polls, which are just that: polls, meaning that they fluctuate, and national, meaning that they blur the regional and local peculiarities that have enormous bearing on the country's direction. We can't let any of the political anomalies, Beltway melodramas, sweeping generalities and other chum for cable television news distract from what I'm increasingly convinced is the whole ballgame for America's future: Democrats' wresting control of at least one chamber of Congress. The party faces brutal odds against flipping the four seats in the Senate necessary for a majority there, so I'm talking about the House. Anyone who appreciates the threat that an unbowed, unrestrained Trump poses must be relentlessly, obsessively focused on the rare congressional districts — maybe about 20 of them, maybe several more — that are truly up for grabs, and on the math and methods for Democratic victories in them. I'm not saying that because the Democratic Party is in such fine fettle. Hardly. I'm saying that because Republicans — devoid of conscience and terrified of Trump — have shown an almost complete willingness to let him do whatever he wants and drag the country wherever he pleases, which is down into a sewer of despotism, corruption, cruelty and fiscal insanity. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.