More than half the members of the Democratic Socialists of America's policy committee openly embrace communism, Marxism, or Marxist-Leninism, according to a claim made on national radio by Julian Epstein, a former Democratic chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee. Epstein cited a recent investigation by The Free Press as the basis for the figure, a finding that, if accurate, puts a hard number on what many conservatives have long suspected about the ideological core of the organization most closely linked to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Epstein made the assertion during a Saturday appearance on The Alex Marlow Show, which airs on the Salem Radio Network.

The claim matters because the DSA is not a fringe campus club. It is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and its endorsed candidates, most prominently Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, hold real power in Congress. If the people who set the DSA's policy direction are self-identified communists and Marxist-Leninists, voters deserve to know what that means for the agenda those politicians carry into office.

What Epstein said, and where he got it

Epstein, a longtime Democratic operative who served as chief counsel on the House Judiciary Committee, did not hold back. Speaking to host Alex Marlow, Breitbart's editor-in-chief, he laid out the number plainly:

"By the way, the Free Press has done a great piece this week showing that 51% of the policy committee, which is the governing board of the DSA, all openly embrace communism, Marxism or Marxist Leninism."

Epstein described the DSA's policy committee as "the governing board" of the organization. The Free Press article he referenced was published in the days before his Saturday appearance. The specific methodology The Free Press used, how it identified and categorized committee members' ideological positions, was not detailed during the broadcast segment.

That leaves open questions. How large is the policy committee? Did The Free Press rely on public statements, social media profiles, organizational affiliations, or self-descriptions? Those details matter for evaluating the 51 percent figure. But the claim itself, coming from a former senior Democratic staffer rather than a Republican critic, carries a particular weight. Epstein is not a conservative provocateur. He spent years inside the Democratic legal apparatus.

The DSA's deep ties to elected Democrats

The DSA's influence on Democratic politics is not theoretical. It runs through money, staffing, and endorsements that connect directly to sitting members of Congress.

Consider the case of Frank Llewellyn. Fox News reported that Llewellyn, a former national director of the DSA who led the organization for more than a decade from 2001 to 2011, has served as campaign treasurer for Ocasio-Cortez since her first congressional run in 2018. He has also handled the books for her political action committee. In total, Llewellyn has received more than $250,000 in payments from AOC's political operation.

Llewellyn confirmed to Fox News that he remains a "lifetime member" of the DSA and stays active in the Queens branch of NYC-DSA. The DSA Fund's own website described him as a "lifelong activist and socialist" who has been involved with the organization since its founding.

That is not a casual association. The person managing the money for one of the most prominent members of Congress is a career socialist organizer who ran the DSA for a decade. And DSA-backed candidates have created growing headaches for Democratic leadership as they win primaries and push the party's center of gravity leftward.

From 'democratic socialism' to open Marxism

For years, DSA-aligned politicians have leaned on the word "democratic" as a qualifier, a rhetorical cushion meant to separate their brand from the authoritarian socialist regimes of the twentieth century. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez routinely describe themselves as "democratic socialists," borrowing the language of Scandinavian welfare states rather than Soviet central planning.

Epstein's claim, drawn from The Free Press investigation, suggests the gap between the DSA's public branding and its internal leadership is wider than the label implies. If a majority of the body that sets the organization's policy direction identifies with communism or Marxist-Leninism, ideologies that historically reject liberal democracy, private property, and market economies, then the "democratic" prefix starts to look like a marketing decision rather than a philosophical commitment.

That distinction is not academic. It shapes what these activists push for when they draft policy platforms, endorse candidates, and organize campaigns. Polling has shown that most Democrats now say they would support a "democratic socialist" candidate, but would those same voters back someone who openly identifies as a Marxist-Leninist? The DSA's own internal composition suggests its leadership has already answered that question for itself.

The organizational pipeline

The DSA's role in Democratic politics extends well beyond endorsements. Llewellyn himself celebrated the organization's involvement in Bernie Sanders' 2006 Senate victory. Writing in a DSA magazine, he urged the group to capitalize on the win:

"In the coming period, it is vital that we use our newly gained grassroots network, and our ties to truly progressive Democrats and Bernie Sanders, to promote both a progressive agenda and progressive organizing."

That was nearly two decades ago. Since then, the pipeline Llewellyn described has only grown. DSA-endorsed candidates have won races at the city, state, and federal levels. The organization's ground game, canvassing, phone banking, and primary challenges against moderate Democrats, has reshaped the party's left flank.

In New York, socialist-backed candidates have routed Democratic incumbents in recent primaries, alarming even figures like Attorney General Letitia James. The trend has prompted veteran Democratic strategist James Carville to call for an outright party "schism" to separate mainstream Democrats from the socialist wing.

When a party's own strategists start using the word "schism," the problem is no longer a matter of a few outlier candidates. It is structural.

What the claim does, and does not, establish

Epstein's statement is a single-source claim attributed to a Free Press article that was not directly quoted or linked during the broadcast. The 51 percent figure deserves scrutiny. Voters and journalists should press for the underlying data: the names on the policy committee, their public statements, and the criteria The Free Press used to categorize them.

But the claim does not exist in a vacuum. It lands in a context where the DSA's own leadership, organizational history, and financial ties to elected officials are already well documented. The fact that a former Democratic chief counsel, not a Republican opposition researcher, is the one raising the alarm gives the charge a credibility it would not carry from a purely partisan source.

Epstein's former colleagues in the Democratic Party will have to decide whether this matters to them. Some commentators have argued that the party's leftward drift is not a hijacking but a choice, a deliberate embrace of candidates and ideas that would have been disqualifying a generation ago.

The question voters should ask

The DSA does not run candidates under its own banner. It endorses Democrats. Its members staff Democratic campaigns. Its alumni manage Democratic money. Its policy positions filter into Democratic legislation. The organization operates inside the Democratic Party, not alongside it.

If the governing board of that organization is majority communist or Marxist-Leninist, then every Democrat who accepts a DSA endorsement owes voters a straight answer: Do you share the ideology of the people backing you, or don't you?

Silence on that question is its own kind of answer. And fifty-one percent is not a rounding error, it is a majority.