Dozens of Democratic candidates running for U.S. House seats nationwide told Axios they either would not support House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) for party leader or were not prepared to commit to voting for him.
The responses suggest growing unease within some parts of the Democratic Party about its current leadership as the 2026 election cycle approaches, the outlet reported this week.
Since assuming the role of Democratic leader in 2022, Hakeem Jeffries has maintained unanimous support within his caucus. That unity, however, may be tested in the next Congress amid rising frustration from grassroots activists, particularly on the party’s left flank.
While Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has drawn much of the criticism from progressive circles this year, Jeffries is increasingly becoming a focal point of dissatisfaction as well, Axios noted.
Axios contacted nearly every Democrat running for a U.S. House seat considered potentially winnable for the party in 2026, receiving responses from 113 candidates through phone interviews or written statements.
Of those surveyed, 20 said they would not vote for Hakeem Jeffries as speaker or minority leader, while another five indicated they were likely to oppose him. Fifty-seven candidates declined to commit to supporting Jeffries, describing it as too early to decide or citing concerns over ideology, strategy, messaging, or leadership style.
Only 24 respondents said they would definitely back Jeffries, and seven more said they were likely to do so, the outlet said.
However, his office pushed back on the narrative that he’s lost support.
“Leader Jeffries is focused on battling Donald Trump, ending the Republican shutdown of the federal government and addressing the crushing GOP health care crisis,” Jeffries spokesperson Justin Chermol told Axios.
Many of the Democrats expressing skepticism toward Hakeem Jeffries are political outsiders or long-shot candidates, while several front-runners in key battleground races declined to respond to Axios’ inquiries. Still, a number of Jeffries’ critics and noncommittal candidates have credible paths to winning seats in Congress.
Among them are Daniel Biss and Kat Abughazaleh, two leading contenders in the Democratic primary to replace retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), both of whom stopped short of pledging to support Jeffries.
Other prominent challengers — including Luke Bronin, Donavan McKinney, Mai Vang, Saikat Chakrabarti, and Patrick Roath — have also withheld their support. Each is running well-funded campaigns aimed at unseating long-serving Democratic incumbents.
Heath Howard, a New Hampshire state representative running for an open U.S. House seat, told Axios regarding the Democratic leader: “I think we need to have a new type of leadership that’s … going to fight back significantly harder against the Trump administration.”
Abughazaleh, meanwhile, told Axios she will support a leader who is “taking actual action against this administration” and that the left should use “our leverage to demand progressive change.”
“We’ve got to see improvement, without question,” Amanda Edwards, who was a member of the Houston city council and is now running in a Texas special election, told the outlet.
Harry Jarin, a firefighter mounting a primary challenge to former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), told Axios: “The anger of the base right now is not being matched by Democratic leadership … and that is going to have to change one way or another.”
A recurring theme among candidates who declined to back Jeffries was his refusal to endorse socialist New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani — a decision that has also become a source of frustration among left-wing members of Congress.
“His refusal to endorse Zohran makes me nervous that, if I were to become the nominee in my race, he and the party would not support me,” noted Jacob Lawrence, who is set to challenged Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.).
Chakrabarti, when asked whether he would support for Jeffries, quipped: “What is it that Hakeem said about endorsing Zohran? ‘I’ll have conversations with him and see where it goes.’”
On his way out the door, the now-fired acting head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency defended its inadequate Biden-era disaster responses while taking some verbal jabs at the Trump administration.
Cameron Hamilton was called to the Department of Homeland Security headquarters in Washington, D.C., where he was dismissed by Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Troy Edgar and Corey Lewandowski, a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, Politico reported, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter.
The dismissal came just one day after Hamilton testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee, during which he appeared to contradict recent statements by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem regarding the possible elimination of FEMA and shifting funding for the agency to state-level emergency management, a move that Trump has been openly considering.
“I do not believe it is in the best interests of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” Hamilton said at the hearing on Wednesday.
FEMA’s press office confirmed Hamilton’s dismissal.
“Effective today, David Richardson is now serving as the Senior Official Performing the duties of the FEMA Administrator,” a spokesperson said in an email while referencing the assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office. “Cameron Hamilton is no longer serving in this capacity.”
Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL, contemplated resigning about two months ago as the new Trump administration was taking shape, until FEMA staff urged him to remain, Politico said, quoting an anonymous source.
Shortly after taking office, Trump’s DHS fired four FEMA officials for an “egregious” payment to illegal immigrants.
DHS officials told Fox News that “four employees are being fired today for circumventing leadership and unilaterally making the egregious payment for hotels for migrants in New York City.”
The firings come after Elon Musk wrote on X that “The DOGE team discovered that the agency sent “$59M LAST WEEK to luxury hotels in New York City to house illegal migrants.”
“That money is meant for American disaster relief and instead is being spent on high-end hotels for illegals. A clawback demand will be made today to recoup those funds,” Musk posted on X.
The finding came weeks after Trump announced plans to reform FEMA during a visit to North Carolina as many residents there continued their recovery from Hurricane Helene, which struck the state last fall.
“I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA, or maybe getting rid of FEMA,” Trump told reporters Friday morning during his visit. “I think, frankly, FEMA is not good.”
Trump also pledged that his administration would provide assistance to North Carolina to help repair the damage swiftly, assuring the state that he would “do a good job” in the recovery efforts.
“We’re going to fix it, and we’re going to fix it as fast as you can,” Trump said. “It’s a massive amount of damage. FEMA has really let us down. Let the country down. And I don’t know if that’s Biden’s fault or whose fault it is, but we’re going to take over. We’re going to do a good job.”
Trump also expressed a desire to see states take on more responsibility when disasters occur, arguing that local officials are better equipped to respond to and manage relief efforts. He promised to collaborate with three lawmakers from areas impacted by Hurricane Helene, criticizing FEMA for being “not on the ball” in aiding North Carolina’s recovery after the hurricane.
“So we’re going to be doing something on FEMA that I think most people agree [with],” Trump said. “I’d like to see the states take care of disasters, let the state take care of the tornadoes and the hurricanes and all of the other things that happen. And I think you’re going to find it a lot less expensive. You’ll do it for less than half, and you’re going to get a lot quicker response.”