It's Time to Fight

in Conversation with Danielle Moodie

[Transcript edited for clarity, flow and length]

Mary Trump: I spoke with my friend and fellow Nerd Avenger, Danielle Moodie of The Danielle Moodie Show and the Substack The Damn Digest. We discussed the gains made by progressives and members of the Democratic Socialists in recent elections, the establishment Democratic Party’s reaction, and the troubling reality that some so called centrist groups seem more concerned about democratic socialists and progressives than they are about fascism. Check it out.

---

Mary Trump: How are you surviving the socialist hellscape that New York City has become since Zohran Mamdani won?

Danielle Moodie: Oh, it’s so terrible to walk around and see people happy. It’s so difficult to read headline after headline about someone who actually wakes up every day thinking about what he can do to improve the lives of New Yorkers and then goes out and does it.

What a monster. Lowering subway fares, providing universal pre-K, and preparing to open five grocery stores across the five boroughs. Then you hear Mike Johnson asking, “Do we want a bunch of little mini Mamdanis running the country?” And my response is, “Yes. Have you actually been to New York?”

Mary Trump: They’re afraid of New York because we have things like Pride flags everywhere, people playing Frisbee by the river, kayaking, and actually enjoying themselves.

Danielle Moodie: Exactly. It’s completely ridiculous.

Mary Trump: It is ridiculous, but it’s also deeply alarming because Republicans have become so desperate that they’ve begun telling Americans the greatest threat facing the country is communism. I wasn’t even aware there were any communists left.

I think what they really mean is fascism, but admitting that would require acknowledging that they’re the problem.

On Tuesday night, Abdul El Sayed won the Democratic primary for the United States Senate in Michigan. The race was much closer than many of the useless polls suggested it would be, but he ultimately won by nearly one percentage point.

That seems to indicate a broader trend.

I’m curious where you come down on the debate over what’s driving these victories. One argument is that voters are responding to democratic socialist ideas. Another is that establishment Democrats have failed so completely, and have been so unwilling to fight, that voters are simply looking for candidates who understand the urgency of this political moment.

To me, it isn’t necessarily about one particular set of policies because the Democratic Party is, and should remain, a big tent. There will always be a broad spectrum of ideas within it.

The more important question is who is actually willing to fight Republicans and who genuinely understands the danger we’re facing as a country.

Where do you fall on that?

Danielle Moodie: Honestly, I think it’s a combination of all of those factors.

Democratic voters are exhausted with the establishment. They’ve watched the same leadership for ten years while Donald Trump has dominated our politics. They’ve watched leaders promise strategy after strategy without producing meaningful results.

Instead, what they’ve heard repeatedly is that we need to continue taking billions of dollars from organizations like AIPAC, continue funding policies many voters disagree with, and continue being told to slow down every time we ask for universal healthcare or investments that would actually improve people’s lives.

For years we’ve been asked to donate five dollars here, twenty dollars there, every time someone gives an impressive committee hearing performance or delivers a fiery speech on the Senate floor. Then another fundraising email arrives.

At some point, people naturally begin asking what all of that money is actually accomplishing.

I don’t think democratic socialists are perfect. They’re a political movement, and every political movement has flaws.

What they have demonstrated, however, is a willingness to center working people. They’re willing to focus on the needs of ordinary Americans. They’re willing to reject corporate money, reject AIPAC money, call a genocide a genocide, and be honest with people about the extent to which both political parties have failed them.

That’s what people are responding to.

Mary Trump: Thank you.

I think one of the biggest problems with establishment Democrats is that they’ve become so deeply entrenched and insulated, particularly in the Senate, that they can no longer see beyond their own self serving, self righteous little circle.

They genuinely fail to recognize the extent to which they’re participating in the very system that’s perpetuating many of the problems we’re facing today. They don’t seem capable of acknowledging that, in some respects, they’re helping create the conditions we’re now struggling to overcome.

Mary Trump: We see that failure to meet the moment reflected in so many different ways. One example was the willingness of establishment Democrats to lavish praise on Lindsey Graham after his death, despite the fact that Lindsey Graham helped enable a fascist regime and did enormous damage to the LGBTQ community, a community of which he was allegedly a closeted member.

Time and again, they seem to believe that making common cause with fascists is somehow more important than actually fighting fascism.

That brings me to the pop quiz I promised you.

There was an article in The New York Times today discussing how moderate Democrats are reacting to the recent successes of the left. Jonathan Cowan, the president of Third Way, said, “We are preparing for the next war that is coming.”

So here’s the question.

Is that war against fascism?

Is it a war against oligarchy?

Or is it a war against Democrats?

Danielle Moodie: Bing, bing, bing. It’s a war against Democrats.

Mary Trump: Exactly.

What’s especially troubling is that Third Way plans to spend fifteen million dollars between now and 2028 trying to discredit democratic socialism. If they truly believe socialism is such a terrible thing, perhaps they should also campaign to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. Those are, after all, social programs.

What I found even more alarming were the specific policy positions they claim to oppose. Whether these are actually positions of the Democratic Socialists of America or not is another question, but this is how they framed them.

They referred to defunding the Department of Defense, although they actually used the phrase “Department of War.” Despite Pete Hegseth’s apparent desire to turn it into exactly that, it’s still called the Department of Defense.

They also cited taking steps toward fully abolishing the police and prison systems, enacting reparations, and establishing a thirty two hour work week.

First, I don’t personally have a problem with any of those ideas being discussed.

Second, I’ve never actually heard anyone seriously advocate abolishing police departments or prisons outright. Reforming those institutions dramatically is one thing. Eliminating them entirely is something else.

Most importantly, though, political platforms are aspirational. They reflect goals parties hope to pursue over time.

So I’m curious.

To the extent those are even accurate descriptions of the Democratic Socialists’ platform, what exactly is so objectionable about them?

And what do we do about organizations that call themselves centrist, along with groups like AIPAC, that seem perfectly willing to spend tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars defeating Democrats, including democratic socialists who are, in fact, Democrats, even if doing so benefits fascists?

What exactly is happening here?

Danielle Moodie: I think it’s incredibly important that people pay attention because these organizations are revealing exactly who they’ve always been.

They’re not Democratic centrists.

They’re Republicans light.

I’ve said many times that MAGA wears bright red hats, while these people wear pink hats. They enjoy presenting themselves as defenders of democracy, but what they really want is the power to dictate how everyone else should live while expecting the rest of us to be satisfied with whatever scraps they decide to hand out.

I’ve never seen anything in the Democratic Socialists’ platform calling for defunding the Department of Defense.

What I have heard is a call to defund ICE, something that a growing majority of Americans now support because they’re watching neighbors being brutalized, kidnapped, and even killed in broad daylight.

I’ve also never heard anyone seriously campaign for a mandatory thirty two hour work week.

What I have heard is a demand for a living wage because no one should have to work eighty hours every week simply to afford rent, a mortgage, or basic necessities.

Organizations like Third Way present themselves as moderate alternatives, but to me they’re the Heritage Foundation in softer packaging.

The Heritage Foundation, as everyone should remember, is the organization behind Project 2025. It’s behind the radicalization of the Supreme Court and much of the broader authoritarian project we’re witnessing today.

Third Way wants to present itself as the reasonable center, but what it has really done is help move the Overton window dramatically to the right.

They now occupy political territory that looks remarkably similar to where George W. Bush stood when he famously described himself as a compassionate conservative.

As we eventually learned, compassion wasn’t really the defining feature of that administration.

What concerns me most is watching establishment Democrats attack people like Zohran Mamdani, Abdul El Sayed, and the Democratic Socialists of America while figures like James Carville, David Axelrod, Bill Maher, and others suggest progressives should simply start their own political party.

The Democratic Party constantly describes itself as a big tent.

In reality, it’s become a corporatized brand where people in office become increasingly wealthy while everyone else is expected to survive on whatever leftovers remain.

That’s why I think we need to pay very close attention to the language organizations like Third Way are using and compare it with what progressives are actually proposing.

Progressives aren’t offering more of the status quo.

They’re offering something fundamentally different.

They’re asking us to center working people instead of wealthy elites because they understand something very simple.

When working people succeed, everyone succeeds.

Mary Trump: Again, it all leads us back to the fact that establishment Democrats seem determined to blame everyone except themselves. They simply have no ability to step outside their own bubble and ask whether perhaps their brand is so underwater because they’re doing something wrong. Instead, the conclusion is always the same. It must be the democratic socialists.

What strikes me about politicians like Zohran Mamdani and, potentially, Abdul El Sayed, although we’ll have to see how he serves if he’s elected to the Senate, is that they actually understand what public service is supposed to be. One of the reasons we’re in the trouble we’re in is because becoming a politician has drifted so far away from its original mission, which was to serve your constituents and do the best you can for them.

We’re living through a very troubling period when politicians routinely leave office far wealthier than they were when they entered public service. How is that something we’ve simply accepted? Right away you’re looking at a system that doesn’t just allow that behavior, but actively promotes it. It encourages politicians to sell out and to turn their backs on the people they represent in favor of special interests willing to finance their campaigns.

I also think there’s a genuine opportunity here to bring the Democratic Party together. Looking at Third Way, looking at what AIPAC is doing, and looking at the mistakes Democratic leadership has made, I was at least somewhat encouraged after the Mamdani debacle. In my opinion, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries embarrassed themselves by refusing to endorse Zohran Mamdani after he became the Democratic nominee. That was shameful. During the primary, Schumer and Gretchen Whitmer endorsed Haley Stevens, and I don’t have any problem with that. People are entitled to support different candidates during a primary.

Once the primary is over, however, the responsibility changes. In the general election, you support the Democratic nominee. After Abdul El Sayed won in Michigan, Schumer, Whitmer, Haley Stevens, and Mallory McMorrow all rallied behind him. I think that’s potentially a very good sign because it’s exactly the kind of unity we’re going to need if we’re going to push back against the enormous financial power of organizations like Third Way.

Danielle Moodie: I talked about this yesterday on The Danielle Moodie Show because, while I appreciate seeing establishment Democrats line up behind Abdul El Sayed after he won the primary, I don’t trust them. I don’t trust Chuck Schumer. I don’t trust the establishment because I remember exactly what they did to Bernie Sanders. I remember what they did to Barack Obama.

My concern is that they’ll publicly embrace El Sayed while quietly working against him because, at the end of the day, his success represents their failure. Even though Abdul El Sayed isn’t a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, he’s a progressive. If progressives continue winning elections, the status quo will be forced to change, and I don’t think establishment Democrats want that to happen.

They want to continue collecting campaign contributions, enjoying lifetime health insurance, benefiting from insider trading, and maintaining a political system that works exceptionally well for them. I sincerely hope Abdul El Sayed keeps his eyes wide open because we’ve seen establishment Democrats maneuver behind closed doors to undermine candidates they don’t really want in the party. Publicly they’ll say one thing, but privately they’ll often do something very different.

Chuck Schumer has been my senator for my entire adult life, which is remarkable in itself. I still remember him saying back in February that his number one priority as New York’s senator was continuing to provide funding to Israel. That’s your number one priority as the senior senator from New York? That tells me everything I need to know about where his priorities actually are.

Mary Trump: I don’t trust Chuck Schumer either. I want him to face a primary challenge. I don’t know who that challenger should be, although I certainly wouldn’t object if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decided to run. Schumer needs to be primaried. Kirsten Gillibrand should be primaried as well. I’m also disappointed in Hakeem Jeffries, which is difficult for me because his district is right next to where I grew up. I really wanted him to rise to this moment, but he hasn’t.

You’re absolutely right that supporting Abdul El Sayed after the primary is only the first step. Those endorsements become empty rhetoric if the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee doesn’t start investing significant resources into that race to offset the extraordinary amounts of money organizations like AIPAC and Third Way are going to spend supporting Mike Rogers. Michigan is one of the most important Senate races in the country, and there’s absolutely no reason Abdul El Sayed can’t win. The challenge is that outside money will be staggering.

Once again, we’re reminded that money has far too much influence in American politics, and unfortunately I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon.

You’re also right that I misspoke earlier. Abdul El Sayed isn’t a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. He’s a progressive. But I think that confusion actually illustrates another problem with establishment Democrats. They deliberately conflate progressives and democratic socialists because it’s politically convenient.

Personally, I don’t care whether someone labels me a progressive, a democratic socialist, or a liberal. I’m certainly well to the left of most establishment Democrats. What unites many of us outside the establishment is something much simpler. We want politicians who understand what public service actually means. We want leaders who take corruption seriously, who are committed to meaningful reform, and who understand that the central fight right now isn’t about reshaping the Democratic Party into their own image. The fight is against fascism. It really shouldn’t be that difficult to understand.

Danielle, I want to give you the last word before I take a moment to tell everyone why they should be following your work.

Danielle Moodie: I think we’re at a real reckoning point, Mary, not just in this country but inside the Democratic Party itself.

The American people have to decide who they actually want representing them because there is a profound difference between politicians and public servants. To me, a politician is little more than an entertainer, somebody who says whatever needs to be said in order to collect another campaign check. That’s what we’ve been living with for far too long.

What we need to restore are genuine public servants. We need people who wake up every morning asking themselves how they can make life better for the people they represent. That was always supposed to be the purpose of public service.

I’m tired of politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouths, who accept campaign contributions from the exact same interests financing Republicans, and then ask us to believe they’re fundamentally different. If both parties are taking money from the same people, then we have to ask ourselves what meaningful distinction remains.

At this point, I don’t think we should fall in love with politicians. We shouldn’t treat them like celebrities or assume they’re above criticism. They work for us. They are accountable to us, and it’s our responsibility to make sure they actually do the jobs they promised to do.

When they don’t, we shouldn’t be afraid to primary them. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be intimidated every time someone says, “If you challenge a Democrat, Republicans will win.”

Right now, I don’t see nearly enough daylight between many establishment Democrats and Republicans because I don’t see enough people truly fighting on behalf of ordinary Americans. That’s what we need more of.

Mary Trump: Yeah, absolutely.

I also want to take a moment to mention something I’m incredibly excited about. My wife, Rhonda Cress, and I recently launched a new political action committee on Donald’s birthday, partly because we thought that was a fitting way to celebrate the occasion.

It’s called Transcend PAC Here , and its mission is to elect exactly the kind of candidates Danielle and I have been talking about throughout this conversation. If you’re interested, just search for Mary Trump’s Transcend PAC. The website address is a little unwieldy, so Googling it is probably the easiest way to find it. HERE

We’re going to announce our first slate of endorsements next week, and we’re genuinely excited about supporting candidates who understand that public office is about service, accountability, and fighting for working people.

I also want to encourage everyone to follow Danielle’s work because she’s doing extraordinary things. Whether it’s The Danielle Moodie Show, The Damn Digest, or Democracy-ish with one of our favorite straight people, Wajahat Ali, Danielle consistently produces thoughtful, insightful work that people should be paying attention to.

Seriously, if you haven’t already subscribed to her platforms, please do that today.

Is there anything else you’d like to let people know about?

Danielle Moodie: Just that I’m grateful to be here, Mary. Thank you so much for inviting me back.

I’ll also remind everyone that I intentionally keep all of my content free because I want it to be accessible to as many people as possible. If becoming a paid subscriber isn’t possible for you, simply subscribing and sharing the work is enormously helpful.

If you are able to become a paid subscriber, though, I hope you’ll consider supporting independent journalism, particularly independent Black voices and queer voices. Those perspectives matter, and sustaining them requires community support.

Mary Trump: That’s wonderful.

It’s always great to see you.

Thanks so much to everyone for joining us today. We’ll see you again soon.

Danielle Moodie: Thank you.

Mary Trump: Bye.

Danielle Moodie: Thank you

.