Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

FACT FOCUS: Experts say Trump's claims linking Democrats to communism are inaccurate

News

FACT FOCUS: Experts say Trump's claims linking Democrats to communism are inaccurate
News

News

FACT FOCUS: Experts say Trump's claims linking Democrats to communism are inaccurate

2026-07-03 06:28 Last Updated At:06:41

President Donald Trump has been warning recently that communism will pose a threat to the U.S. if Democrats win in the upcoming midterm elections.

“It’s the biggest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, September 11th,” he said on Wednesday, segueing into a political message as he visited the newly constructed Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library in North Dakota.

Last week, he referred to Democrats as “hard core, godless Communists” at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s 2026 policy conference.

Trump's latest round of attacks has followed primary victories by democratic socialist candidates. They are reminiscent of similar narratives he has employed throughout his political career.

But experts say his claims, echoed by Vice President J.D. Vance and other Republican leaders, are off base.

Here's a closer look at the facts.

TRUMP: “It's becoming a communist party. These are not social Dumocrats, these are hardcore, godless Communists."

THE FACTS: No candidate openly belonging to the U.S. Communist Party has ever been elected to state or federal office, according to experts. Although there are fringes of the Democratic Party that have expressed support for communist ideas, experts say that they still advocate for a market-based economy and that it is inaccurate to paint the entire party with such a broad brush. Trump recently began referring to Democrats pejoratively as “Dumocrats.”

“The reality is that none of these major political figures in the Democratic Party, even those further out on the left, are identifying as communists,” said Marc Selverstone, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center for Public Affairs, adding that it’s an opportunity to portray Democrats as marginal figures.

Selverstone, who authored a book on international communism, noted that Democrats who are more closely aligned with socialism and democratic socialism are still far from supporting basic communist ideals such as the abolition of private property or central economic planning.

Rather, democratic socialists believe in providing a more extensive social safety net within the confines of democracy. The movement often centers on securing universal healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy and stricter corporate regulation.

Some democratic socialists belong to the Democratic Socialists of America, a political and activist organization — not a party.

Over the years, Trump has labeled his opponents as communists and discussed the effectiveness of doing so.

“All we have to do is define our opponent as being a communist or a socialist or somebody who is going to destroy our country,” he told reporters at his New Jersey golf club in August 2024 while describing how he planned to defeat his Democratic opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, whom he branded “comrade Kamala” in the presidential election.

Asked to comment on Trump's claims of communist beliefs among Democratic candidates, Kendall Witmer, the Democratic National Committee's rapid response director, said that the president is “grasping at straws" ahead of the midterms.

Olivia Wales, a White House spokeswoman, said that “the Democrats' embrace of socialism and communism is an existential threat to our country” and that Trump will “keep calling out their radicalism.”

Communist Party USA has a small footprint in current U.S. politics. It brought in about 20,000 members over the past several years and is in the process of assessing how many are active, according to co-chair Joe Sims. He agreed that recent Democratic candidates cannot accurately be described as members of his party.

“I don’t know of any of those candidates who are members of the Communist Party or who subscribe to Marxism in the tradition that our party comes from,” he said. “Not that it would be a crime if there are such forces, but at this stage, I really don’t see it.”

Darializa Avila Chevalier, a declared democratic socialist who upset a fifth-term New York City congressman for the Democratic nomination to run in November, is facing scrutiny over deleted social media posts sympathetic to communism and related topics. She said in a statement sent to The Associated Press that she is “proud to be a democratic socialist,” and her campaign confirmed that she does not identify as a communist.

Graham Platner won the Maine Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, setting up a high-stakes race against longtime incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins. He has similarly faced extensive criticism for old online comments, including one in which he called himself a communist. But he told CNN last October: “I'm not a communist. I'm not a socialist.”

Harvey Klehr, an expert on American communism and professor emeritus at Emory University, said it is unlikely that Democrats who gravitate toward ideas associated with communism actually consider themselves members of the Communist Party.

A small number of communist candidates have been elected to local offices in the U.S. But experts say no open members of the Communist Party have won state or federal office.

There is a long history of U.S. politicians calling opponents communist or Marxist without evidence — perhaps most infamously, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who led efforts to blacklist accused communists in the 1950s. McCarthy's chief counsel during his televised hearings was Roy Cohn, who became Trump's mentor and fixer as he rose to prominence as a real estate mogul in New York.

“I think it's part of the arsenal of the right, which today means the Republican Party, largely, to pull out these accusations of communism, of godless communism,” said Maurice Isserman, a professor of American history at Hamilton College and an expert in American communism.

Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at the Faith & Freedom Coalition's policy conference at the Washington Hilton, Friday, June 26, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at the Faith & Freedom Coalition's policy conference at the Washington Hilton, Friday, June 26, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to intervene after a judge ordered an $800-a-day fine for a former Fox News reporter if she refuses to reveal her confidential source for stories about a Chinese American scientist who was investigated by the FBI but never charged.

The high court rebuffed an emergency appeal from Catherine Herridge. The veteran investigative reporter has been held in civil contempt as part of a lawsuit that scientist Yanping Chen filed against the government over the leak.

Chief Justice John Roberts previously put a short-term hold on the fine as the court considered the appeal. On Thursday, the court said it was denying Herridge's bid to stay the fine. Justice Brett Kavanaugh supported granting the application for a stay, the court said.

Herridge published a series for Fox News in 2017 that examined Chen’s ties to the Chinese military and raised questions about whether the scientist was using a professional school she founded in Virginia to help the Chinese government get information about American servicemembers.

Fox News Media expressed disappointment in the decision.

“Protecting the confidentiality of journalistic sourcing and the integrity of the newsgathering process is fundamental to a free and functioning democracy. While we are deeply disappointed by the Court’s decision, our commitment to defending these critical First Amendment principles remains unwavering and we will be reviewing our options to further fight this injustice," the network said in a statement.

Herridge’s attorneys did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

The stories relied on what Chen’s lawyers say were items leaked from the probe into statements she made on immigration forms related to work on a Chinese astronaut program.

Those include snippets of an FBI document summarizing an interview conducted during the investigation, personal photographs, and information taken from her immigration and naturalization forms and from an internal FBI PowerPoint presentation, according to court documents.

The six-year probe never resulted in charges against Chen, and in 2018 she sued the FBI and the Justice Department.

Her suit said that both her personal and professional life were upended amid a wave of negative media attention after the leak, leading to hate mail and death threats. She accused the government of violating the Privacy Act, which prohibits the public disclosure of private information about individuals without their consent.

A judge ordered Herridge to answer questions about her source or sources in a deposition with Chen’s lawyers. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington ruled that Chen’s need to know for the sake of her lawsuit overcame Herridge’s right to shield her source.

Herridge was interviewed under oath but declined to answer questions about her sources. The judge eventually held her in contempt, and the fine was set to begin after the order was upheld by an appeals court panel.

The case has been closely watched by media advocates, who say forcing journalists to betray a promise of confidentiality could make sources think twice before providing information to reporters that could expose government wrongdoing.

“Journalists facing contempt should not have to muster large payments to the court while they seek to vindicate First Amendment rights," said Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "And forcing them to betray source confidences always has a harmful impact on the free flow of information to the public.”

Chen’s lawyers say they have exhausted other ways to identify the leaker, and the identity is key to making their case that the Privacy Act was violated. Attorney Andrew Phillips said they hope Thursday's decision will help bring the matter to a close.

“Dr. Chen, like any other American citizen, is entitled to discover the identity of the federal official(s) who abused their access to an American’s private information and leaked it to cause her harm. That type of corrupt, unlawful conduct is exactly what the Privacy Act was designed to address," he said.

Herridge reported for Fox News and CBS News before recently becoming an independent journalist.

The Supreme Court is seen Tuesday, June 30, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

The Supreme Court is seen Tuesday, June 30, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Recommended Articles