AOC Targets Senate, Raises Eyebrows Again

Woman speaking into a microphone on stage — Photo: a katz / Shutterstock

When a sitting member of Congress suggests parts of the U.S. Senate were “founded on Jim Crow” while refusing to rule out abolishing it, many Americans hear confirmation that the system itself may be stacked against them.

Story Snapshot

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declined to reject a Democratic Socialists of America call to abolish the Senate, calling the idea a “constitutional question.”
She said she does not support the filibuster and claimed some Senate elements were “founded on Jim Crow” and racism.
She outlined that abolishing the Senate would require a constitutional convention and approval from two-thirds of the states.
Critics on the right and some in the media mocked her comments as “lunacy” and portrayed them as proof of radical institutional plans.

AOC’s Remarks Tie Senate Rules to Jim Crow History

During a recent Newsmax interview, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was pressed about a Democratic Socialists of America proposal to abolish the United States Senate. When asked directly if she rejected that idea, she did not give a clear “no.” Instead, she said the question was “of course, a constitutional question” and quickly turned to attacking Senate procedures like the filibuster, saying she does not support it and does not support parts of the institution that she claimed were “founded on Jim Crow.”

Her comments did not include specific names of past senators, dates, or particular rules that were created during the Jim Crow era. She also did not cite historians or official records in the interview to back up her claim that Senate elements were “founded on” Jim Crow. This fits her broader pattern of warning that American democracy could slide back toward Jim Crow–style racial discrimination if voting rights are not protected and if minority communities lose political power.

What She Said About Abolishing the Senate

On Capitol Hill, Ocasio-Cortez previously told reporters she was not “jumping on” the Democratic Socialists of America push to abolish the Senate but said the chamber needs “significant changes.” In both that conversation and the Newsmax interview, she stressed that eliminating the Senate would be extremely hard because it would require a constitutional amendment. She explained that such an amendment would need either two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention, followed by approval from three-fourths of the states.

Her answers gave her room to criticize the Senate without fully endorsing its abolition. She did not say “the Senate must be abolished” in the interview, but she also refused to directly reject the Democratic Socialists of America plan when asked. This allows supporters to see her as open to big structural change, while giving opponents a chance to paint her as vague or evasive about how far she really wants to go.

Filibuster Debate and Jim Crow Claims

Ocasio-Cortez singled out the filibuster as a Senate rule she wants gone, calling it part of an institution tied to Jim Crow and racism. Many progressive activists and legal groups argue the filibuster has a long history of blocking civil rights laws and protecting white supremacist interests. These critics say a rule that lets a minority of senators stop legislation helped delay anti-lynching bills, voting rights protections, and other measures that would have weakened Jim Crow systems.

AOC Aligns with DSA Call to Abolish the Senate

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently stated she does not support elements of the Senate because they were “founded on Jim Crow.” (Video: AI)

This comes as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) updated its platform in July… pic.twitter.com/KwuouMjiY9

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) July 18, 2026

Several historians, however, note that the filibuster did not begin as a racial tool and was not created during debates over slavery or segregation. They agree it was later used heavily to block civil rights laws but say calling it a “Jim Crow relic” can blur the difference between how a rule started and how politicians chose to use it. This tension shows up in today’s debate: democracy advocates demand the filibuster be scrapped to restore majority rule, while defenders argue that sudden rule changes could upset the careful checks and balances the Constitution set up for the Senate.

Backlash Highlights Wider Distrust of Government

Conservative media outlets and commentators quickly seized on Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks, mocking her for suggesting the Senate was “founded on, on, uh, on, Jim Crow” and accusing her of misunderstanding basic history. Karl Rove called the Democratic Socialists of America platform “lunacy” and “insane,” using the abolition idea as proof that the far left wants to tear down core American institutions rather than fix them. Some critics also point to her record of passing few bills into law, arguing that someone they see as ineffective should not be driving radical structural change.

For many regular Americans, both conservative and liberal, this fight taps into something deeper. People on the right see one more example of progressive politicians trying to rewrite the rules of the game when they do not get their way. People on the left see institutions, like the Senate and its filibuster, as tools used by rich and powerful elites to block change on voting rights, health care, and the economy. In both cases, there is a shared feeling that the system serves insiders first and everyday citizens last, no matter which party holds power.

Why This Matters Beyond One Interview

Calls to abolish or radically change the Senate have surfaced many times during periods of stress and gridlock. Analysts note that such proposals almost always run into the same wall: the Constitution makes it extremely hard to remove one of the two chambers of Congress, and the states that benefit from equal Senate representation have little reason to surrender that power. So while abolition talk fires up activists, experts say it remains a distant prospect, especially in a polarized country where broad agreement is rare.

Ocasio-Cortez’s comments still matter because they show how trust in national institutions continues to erode on both sides of the aisle. When an elected official ties the Senate to Jim Crow and when critics respond by calling that “insane,” it signals how far apart Americans are on what the problem is and how to fix it. Yet behind the noise, many citizens share one basic worry: that the rules in Washington, whether filibusters or constitutional hurdles, now work better for party leaders, lobbyists, and the “deep state” than for people trying to reach the American Dream through hard work and initiative.