WASHINGTON, D.C. Across the shaded corridors of the Rayburn House Office Building and among the quiet tables at the Monocle, conversations among political operatives are shifting. They no longer discuss how the Democratic Party will win; instead, they question whether the party, in its current form, can continue to exist.

By the end of 2025, the Democratic Party will be struggling significantly. They are losing influence and appear to be collapsing internally. A sequence of stinging electoral losses has left the organization unstable.

The resultant internal review has turned into a brutal cycle of internal blame. With approval numbers extremely low and registered members considering leaving the platform, the party once led by FDR and JFK now faces a crisis threatening its very foundation.

The Problem at the Top: A Ship Adrift

The clearest sign of Democratic troubles is the severe lack of central authority. For the first time in recent memory, the party essentially has no leader. After the Biden-Harris administration departed, there is no obvious successor, no person uniting different factions, and no cohesive plan.

A Politico poll released in November 2025 highlighted an alarming situation. When Democratic voters were asked who currently leads the party, the most frequent answer was “I don’t know,” followed closely by “Nobody.” Only sixteen percent of those who voted for the Democratic slate in 2024 could name a current official leader.

“I couldn’t tell you who the leader of the Democratic Party is, and I work in Democratic politics,” one seasoned strategist confessed plainly. The retirement of powerful figures like Nancy Pelosi eliminated the last points of stability. This has left the party fragmented, acting as 535 separate brands with no common strategy.

The Ideological Shift: Internal Conflict for the Party’s Identity

While leadership remains missing, the party’s ideological core has severely fractured. The most structured, outspoken, and aggressive element within the organization is no longer moderate members; it is the Democratic Socialists.

Once a weak movement, the socialist wing has expertly pushed its members past incumbents in primary races, gaining control over the party’s machinery. Figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the newly elected New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani represent a liberal contingent that many moderates consider too extreme for general elections. This specific takeover has created a challenging atmosphere for centrist Democrats. They are now pressured between a rising Republican influence and an internal ideological cleanup.

The “Squad” and their partners promote controversial policies (the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and intense anti-corporate language) that moderates believe are electorally harmful in the battleground states needed to secure a majority. “We are surrendering the middle ground because we are afraid of our own left wing,” stated one former Democratic congressman who lost his seat in 2024. “A group that prefers ideological purity in the minority has co-opted the party rather than working for pragmatic effectiveness in the majority.”

A Divided Institution: The Sharp Internal Fighting

The tension between these groups is now beyond polite disagreement; it is an open war. Significant infighting has undermined the party’s ability to act as a united opposition.

Recent policy disputes, such as the fight over the “Obamacare cliff” extension and yearly government spending bills, show Democrats arguing among themselves more than they confront their Republican peers. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer faced immediate, harsh criticism from the progressive wing when he supported certain bipartisan spending measures. They accused him of “capitulating” to the Trump administration.

This internal disharmony covers more than just policy; it involves core identity. Moderates want to focus on everyday issues, such as rising costs and community safety. Meanwhile, the progressive wing emphasizes social justice and identity politics. Recent data suggests these themes are alienating the very working-class and minority voters the party historically depended upon.

Approval Ratings Reach a New Low

The public’s response to this turmoil has been immediate and harsh. The Democratic Party’s popularity has reached a historical low point. A December 2025 Quinnipiac University poll discovered that only thirty percent of voters have a favorable view of the party. This is the lowest rating since the poll began tracking this data in 2008.

More troubling for the Democratic National Committee is the feeling among its own members. Nearly fifty percent of young Democrats describe their own party as “weak” or “ineffective.” Voters across the political spectrum frequently complain that the Democratic Party has become an organization of elites, no longer able to speak to the concerns of average Americans.

The Great Migration: Voters Leaving the Lineup

Perhaps the most significant threat is the large-scale departure of essential voting groups. For decades, Democrats relied on a combination of young people, minorities, and blue-collar workers. That partnership is now dissolving.

• Gen Z Abandonment: Young voters, once viewed as the party’s future, are moving toward the right rapidly. In 2024, Gen Z voters showed double-digit preference for Republicans in certain areas. This shift is driven by economic dissatisfaction and a feeling that the Democratic Party seems “stale” and disconnected.
• Minority Group Changes: The political realignment that started in 2020 has accelerated. Hispanic and Asian American voters, especially men, are increasingly aligning with Republican populist messages regarding trade, security, and traditional ideas.
• The Working Class: The party’s failure to engage with non-college-educated workers has turned former Democratic strongholds into reliably Republican territories.

Can This Breakdown Be Halted?

The Democratic Party in late 2025 illustrates institutional decline. This is a party where central voices are silenced, the socialist faction dominates but lacks electoral success, and central leadership is absent.

Without drastically changing its approach, which likely requires abandoning the current ideological platform, the party risks becoming a lasting minority, a leftover from a former political time that the rest of the nation has surpassed.

As one strategist noted, “You cannot govern by hating the opposition, and you cannot succeed when you are fighting yourself. Right now, we are doing both.”

Related News:

Trump Targets Fentanyl While Democrats Shield Illegal Drug Dealers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump significantly stepped up his administration’s fight against Nicolás Maduro’s government yesterday. He announced a “total and complete blockade” targeting all sanctioned oil tankers moving into or out of Venezuela.

This action, combined with naming the Venezuelan government a foreign terrorist organization, shows a stronger approach against Caracas. This strategy uses two main tactics: a renewed effort against drug trafficking and cutting off essential oil exports.

Sources close to the White House say this is the most aggressive use yet of what the administration calls the “Trump Corollary” to the historic Monroe Doctrine. This new policy marks a key change, focusing U.S. national security efforts back toward the Western Hemisphere.

Attacking Two Fronts: Drugs and Oil

The president’s announcement follows a recent increase in military activity in the Caribbean. Since September, U.S. forces have hit more than 25 ships accused of smuggling drugs, leading to at least 95 deaths. Trump has described these military actions as necessary to stop “narco-terrorism.” He accused Maduro of running the “Cartel de los Soles,” a group allegedly involving Venezuelan military officers in cocaine shipments.

The campaign is not limited to stopping vessels at sea. On Tuesday, Trump directly linked Venezuela’s oil income to funding drug operations, human trafficking, and other illegal activities. “They are using oil from stolen oil fields to finance themselves,” he posted on Truth Social. The president promised not to let a “hostile regime” keep control of assets he believes belong to the United States.

Just this week, authorities seized a large oil tanker off Venezuela’s coast. They also imposed new sanctions on Maduro’s relatives, including three nephews of his wife, and six shipping companies involved in moving oil. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claims these steps undo “failed” Biden-era policies that supposedly helped Maduro maintain power.

The blockade only targets sanctioned vessels. Officials expect it will reduce Venezuela’s exports, currently around 900,000 barrels per day, by about 300,000 barrels daily. Even so, this is the first time the U.S. Navy has enforced sanctions on this scale. The region now hosts a major U.S. naval presence, including aircraft carriers and many warships.

Reorienting Focus: From Europe to the Americas

This tough stance toward Venezuela is part of a bigger change in direction. The administration’s recent National Security Strategy details this strategic shift. The document clearly ranks the Western Hemisphere as a top priority. It seeks a region “free from hostile foreign incursions or ownership of key assets.” It emphasizes U.S. control over “critical supply chains” and “continued access to key strategic locations.”

European critics have responded with concern. They note the Strategy’s strong language toward traditional allies. It suggests Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of migration and cultural shifts. It also promises to “cultivate resistance” by supporting “patriotic” political groups. The NSS indicates a reduced commitment to European defense, urging the continent to take responsibility for its safety, especially with ongoing conflicts like Ukraine.

Administration staff defend the adjustment as practical. With the U.S. producing more of its own energy, it needs less Middle Eastern oil. Public worries about illegal migration and drug abuse also lead politicians to redirect resources closer to home. “The days of stabilizing the entire world order are over,” a senior aide told journalists privately.

Reworking the Monroe Doctrine

The foundation of this change is the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The president proclaimed this addition on the doctrine’s anniversary earlier this month. The original policy, created in 1823, warned European nations against new colonization efforts in the Americas. Since then, American presidents, starting with Theodore Roosevelt, have used and broadened the doctrine to justify U.S. intervention.

Trump’s version updates the doctrine for today. “The American people, not foreign nations nor globalist institutions, will always control their own destiny in our hemisphere,” the document asserts. It aims to exclude “non-hemispheric competitors” (widely understood as China and Russia) from acquiring important assets in Latin America, such as ports or mines.

In the case of Venezuela, the corollary supports anti-drug operations and the economic pressure being applied. The pressure intends to secure U.S. access to the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Trump has frequently suggested that regime change could allow American companies to return to prominence in Venezuelan oil fields. This idea recalls the period before Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in the 1970s, when U.S. corporations dominated that area.

International Fallout: Impact on European Bankers

The aggressive crackdown could have effects far beyond the Americas, particularly for European finance. Banks in London, Switzerland, and Portugal have long been accused of helping to handle billions linked to Venezuela’s state oil company (PDVSA) and corrupt officials.

Investigations, such as the FinCEN Files, revealed how major international banks processed questionable transactions tied to Maduro’s allies, often through shell corporations in London.

Now that Venezuela is named a terrorist entity and its oil trade faces more sanctions, European financial workers face intense review. Secondary sanctions, which penalize third parties working with sanctioned entities, could freeze assets or bar firms from U.S. markets. Past investigations, like those concerning Banco Espirito Santo for Venezuelan-linked money laundering, serve as a clear warning.

Sources in the City of London, speaking anonymously, worry that Trump’s strong enforcement will break up long-established financial networks. “These institutions have profited from unclear Venezuelan dealings for years,” an analyst noted. “A complete U.S. blockade might force disclosures and prosecutions that uncover decades of involvement.”

The global banking system, often criticized in Trump circles for enabling corruption, might become collateral damage. As U.S. authorities target shadow shipping fleets and middlemen moving Venezuelan oil, many of whom run operations through European hubs, the consequences could redefine global finance.

The Global Order Under Review

Trump’s National Security Strategy signals massive upcoming changes. By prioritizing control over its own hemisphere, the policy challenges the global order created after World War II, when U.S. leadership extended worldwide through groups like NATO. For Europe and the UK, this means less American military support during a time of Russian aggression and internal divisions.

In the Americas, the strategy promises to work with “like-minded” governments on migration and crime. However, it also suggests forceful action against those who do not comply. Venezuela is the first test case. Will the blockade and military strikes remove Maduro, or will they cause a larger conflict?

As the U.S. naval forces gather around Venezuela, questions about the outcome remain. Trump has hinted at land strikes taking place “very soon” and demanded the return of “stolen” assets. Experts warn that using military force risks increasing drug violence and angering regional partners.

From the Pentagon to diplomatic offices in Brussels, one fact is undeniable: The United States has shifted its attention to its own region. The Trump Corollary is not just political talk; it is policy in action, with Venezuela front and center.

Related News:

Trump Targets Fentanyl While Democrats Shield Illegal Drug Dealers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Republican lawmakers and former President Donald Trump are again pushing long-running accusations that Minnesota Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar married her brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, to commit immigration fraud and help him gain U.S. status.

The claims, which have followed Omar since her 2016 run for the Minnesota legislature, flared up again after Trump attacked her at a rally in Pennsylvania, triggering fresh Republican demands for federal investigations.

During a December 9 event in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, billed as a discussion on economic affordability, Trump shifted to a harsh personal attack on Omar, one of the first Muslim women in Congress and a frequent critic of his policies.

“She married her brother in order to get in [the U.S.], right?” Trump told the crowd, sparking cheers and chants of “send her back.” He described Somalia, where Omar was born, as “about the worst country in the world” and said she “should get the hell out” of the United States, claiming she entered the country illegally and “does nothing but complain.”

Origins of the Marriage and Immigration Fraud Claims

The allegations trace back to Somali-American online forums in 2016. Critics focus on Omar’s 2009 civil marriage to Elmi, a British citizen, who they argue is her biological brother. Supporters of the theory claim the marriage was a sham arranged to help Elmi gain U.S. residency or citizenship, which could amount to federal immigration fraud.

Although the claim has circulated for years, it has never been backed by definitive public records or verified scientific evidence. It remains a flashpoint in debates over Omar’s background and credibility.

On December 12, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas pushed the issue further in response to a White House social media post that repeated the accusation. “If this is true, then Omar faces criminal liability under three different statutes,” Cruz wrote on X.

He referenced federal marriage fraud, a felony that can carry up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and possible deportation. He also pointed to Minnesota’s incest law, which can bring up to 10 years in prison, and raised the prospect of tax fraud if Omar filed joint tax returns related to the questioned marriage.

Calls for Investigation from Republicans

Other Republicans have picked up the demand for closer scrutiny. Former acting ICE Director Tom Homan, often referred to as a border enforcement hawk, said in a recent interview that the Department of Homeland Security is reviewing immigration fraud cases. He stopped short of confirming that Omar is the subject of any specific inquiry.

Conservative outlets and commentators, including Fox News and PJ Media, have amplified the story. Many lean on circumstantial details, such as archived social media posts and accounts from within the Somali-American community, to suggest a family link between Omar and Elmi.

One of the most cited voices is Abdihakim Osman, a figure within the Somali community in Minneapolis. In 2020, Osman told reporters that Omar and her then-partner, Ahmed Hirsi, referred to Elmi as her brother when he arrived from London.

Osman said that word of the marriage caused anger in parts of the local community and alleged that the union was arranged to help Elmi secure immigration status. His comments have become a central part of the narrative pushed by Omar’s critics.

Claims of DNA Evidence

Supporters of the accusation also point to claims of DNA testing that allegedly show a 99.999998 percent chance that Omar and Elmi are siblings. These reports circulate mostly in conservative media spaces and on partisan blogs.

However, the sources behind the supposed DNA results are anonymous or opaque, and no independent, mainstream outlet has verified or authenticated any such test. No public, credible DNA evidence has linked the two as biological siblings.

Now 43 and in her fourth term in Congress, Omar has repeatedly rejected the allegations, calling them “absurd” and “offensive.” She has said they are rooted in Islamophobia, racism, and misogyny, and framed them as part of a broader pattern of personal attacks against her.

In recent posts on X, she described Trump’s fixation with her private life as “creepy” and told him to seek help. Her office frequently references earlier fact-checks that classify the claims as unproven.

What Fact-Checkers and Reporters Have Found

Organizations such as Snopes and PolitiFact, along with reporting by the Minneapolis Star Tribune and Associated Press, have reviewed the available evidence. They have not found conclusive proof that Elmi is Omar’s brother.

Public records confirm that Omar legally married Elmi in 2009 and finalized a divorce in 2017. At the same time, family immigration papers from 1995 list Omar as the youngest of seven children and do not include Elmi. Omar has released some documents that show different timelines and identities, and no birth certificates or authenticated DNA records have proven a sibling relationship.

Ilhan Omar’s Complicated Marital History

Omar’s personal life, especially her marriages, has drawn heavy media attention. According to public records and her own statements:

• She entered a faith-based (religious) marriage with Ahmed Hirsi in 2002 and had children with him.
• They separated in 2008.
• She was legally married to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009.
• She later reunited with Hirsi while still married to Elmi.
• She divorced Elmi in 2017.
• She then legally married Hirsi in 2018.
• The couple divorced again, and in 2020, she married political consultant Tim Mynett.

This complex history has fueled political attacks but has not, so far, led to criminal charges tied to marriage or immigration fraud.

Previous Reviews and Legal Findings

The allegations have surfaced at nearly every stage of Omar’s political rise, from her time in the Minnesota legislature to her run for Congress. In 2019, a Minnesota campaign finance probe looked into aspects of her past filings and found tax issues related to returns she filed with Hirsi while she was still legally married to Elmi.

The investigation resulted in a fine and repayment order for misuse of campaign funds in unrelated matters, but it did not produce any charges related to marriage fraud, immigration fraud, or incest. No law enforcement agency has formally accused her of such crimes.

Political Motives and Community Impact

The renewed focus on Omar comes as immigration enforcement efforts, including those affecting Minnesota’s Somali community, gain more attention in Republican circles. Critics say the attacks on Omar are part of a broader strategy to stir anger over immigration and cultural change.

Democrats, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have denounced the claims and Trump’s comments as racist and divisive. Supporters argue that Omar is being targeted because she is a Black, Muslim, immigrant woman in a high-profile role.

At the same time, figures like Cruz keep pressing for accountability and a formal federal review, possibly by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security. That push keeps the idea of a federal investigation alive, even without new verified evidence.

Omar’s Political Future Amid Mounting Scrutiny

Omar has vowed to stay focused on her duties representing Minnesota’s Fifth District. “No matter what words Trump throws at me, I will not let that deter my work,” she wrote recently on social media.

Still, the revived controversy hangs over her, especially as partisan tensions rise and media outlets revisit every detail of her past. As a high-profile member of the progressive “Squad,” her actions and history draw extra attention from both supporters and opponents.

The situation remains fluid. Allies and critics are digging in, trading documents, statements, and old records. If new, credible evidence surfaces, the legal and political stakes for Omar could shift quickly. For now, the accusations remain unproven, yet they continue to shape how many Americans see one of Congress’s most talked-about lawmakers.

Related News:

Trump Calls Ilhan Omar a Disgrace as Immigration Fraud Allegations Resurface