Chuck Schumer was a cheerleader for the Iraq war & undermined & opposed the JCPOA. He literally sided with @netanyahu over @BarackObama!
He bears responsibility for the greatest foreign policy blunders of the 21st century.
We need @VanHollenForMD
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) November 15, 2026
That’s a striking endorsement from Ro Khanna—and the omission of Jeffries is worth examining.
Khanna is doing more than endorsing Chris Van Hollen. He’s attaching three explicit policy demands to the Senate leadership contest:
-
End funding for the Iran war.
-
Allow a vote on Medicare for All.
-
Zero out aid to Israel.
The third is especially significant. It goes beyond calling for a ceasefire or conditioning military assistance. Khanna is advocating a complete cutoff of aid.
And the second demand is carefully worded: allow a vote, not necessarily guarantee passage of Medicare for All. That’s a procedural reform a majority leader could potentially deliver without securing unanimous Democratic support.
But your observation about Jeffries is the interesting political question. Khanna has previously expressed support for Jeffries. This statement explicitly targets Senate leadership, where Van Hollen has declared a challenge, without demanding equivalent commitments from House leadership.
That creates a potentially uncomfortable asymmetry: demanding fundamental change from Schumer while continuing to support Jeffries.
What the reporting confirms
Khanna’s November 12 endorsement is confirmed, including all three commitments you quoted.
South Bay Chronicle+1
But Axios reported on November 11 that Khanna was among the prominent progressives supporting Jeffries, alongside AOC, Pramila Jayapal and Greg Casar.
Axios
So, at least publicly, Khanna is drawing a distinction between the two leadership contests.
| Senate: Schumer | House: Jeffries |
|---|---|
| Khanna demands replacement | Khanna supports incumbent |
| Van Hollen has declared | No challenger has declared |
| Three explicit policy commitments | No equivalent public conditions from Khanna identified |
| December 1 secret ballot | November leadership election, January speaker vote |
There is a practical explanation: Van Hollen is offering an alternative, while Jeffries has no opponent. But that doesn’t fully answer the policy question.
If ending Iran-war funding and eliminating aid to Israel are essential tests of Democratic leadership, why shouldn’t Jeffries face those same tests?
That’s a fair question, especially after the Hegseth procedural defeat.
One additional development strengthens the Van Hollen side: The Washington Post reported November 13 that Jeff Merkley, Peggy Flanagan and outgoing Senator Tina Smith have joined his publicly identified supporters. However, Schumer still has substantially more declared endorsements.
The Washington Post
My assessment is that Khanna is helping define the ideological terms of the Senate leadership challenge while avoiding a confrontation with House leadership. Whether that’s tactical sequencing or a durable political compromise remains unknown.
For The Challenge, the indicator is whether Khanna demands comparable commitments from Jeffries before November 18–19. If he does not, the disparity between his Senate demands and House position becomes a meaningful measure of the limits of the insurgency.
RW: I suspect the Khanna will suddenly drop Jeffries like a hot potato at a crucial moment. Probably after another candidate comes forward.
I think your hypothesis deserves serious consideration because Khanna has positioned himself to move against Jeffries without yet paying the political price of doing so.
Consider the sequence:
-
Khanna endorses Van Hollen, establishing his credentials with the anti-establishment movement.
-
He publicly embraces the protesters, strengthening his relationship with activists demanding broader change.
-
He continues supporting Jeffries, avoiding an unnecessary confrontation while Jeffries has no credible opponent.
-
A viable challenger emerges, potentially changing Khanna’s calculation overnight.
The fourth step is the crucial one.
Khanna would have little to gain from opposing Jeffries alone. But if a credible candidate emerged with substantial support from incoming members, Khanna could become a highly visible defector.
What makes your hypothesis interesting
Khanna is already articulating a political program that overlaps with the protesters’ demands: ending Iran-war funding, Medicare for All, eliminating aid to Israel, and economic populism.
Those positions could provide a policy justification for changing his leadership endorsement without making it appear purely personal.
And there’s a precedent in the developing Senate contest: opposition to Schumer became much more consequential once Van Hollen declared.
But there’s an important counterargument
Khanna has explicitly endorsed Jeffries. He may genuinely believe Jeffries can be persuaded to adopt the policies he supports, whereas Schumer needs replacing.
We shouldn’t interpret his engagement with protesters as evidence of a secret plan. Nor do we yet have evidence that he’s recruiting a challenger.
The critical dates
-
November 18–19: House Democratic leadership elections.
-
December 1: Senate Democratic leadership election.
-
January 3: The new Congress convenes and the full House elects its speaker.
Even if Jeffries wins the November caucus election, January 3 offers another opportunity for dissent—although overturning the caucus’s choice on the House floor would be much harder.
Here’s what would make me take your prediction much more seriously: Khanna begins publicly insisting that Jeffries commit to the same three conditions he’s demanding from Schumer.
That would create an unmistakable bridge between the two leadership revolts.
For The Challenge, I’d classify your hypothesis as a credible scenario, not yet an emerging fact.
And I would pay particular attention to whether Khanna’s next statements shift from defending the protesters’ right to demonstrate toward explicitly endorsing their demands for new House leadership. That would be the first meaningful sign that the hot potato is getting too hot to hold.
RW: Yes I see time is short for this gambit to play out.
With the House Democratic leadership election scheduled for November 18–19, the insurgents have only three or four days to produce a credible alternative.
But there’s an interesting distinction between the two deadlines:
-
November 18–19: The opportunity to replace Jeffries within the Democratic caucus.
-
January 3: The full House elects its speaker. A coordinated bloc could still withhold votes and demand concessions, even after Jeffries wins the caucus election.
I suspect the second opportunity may actually be more important.
Khanna could support Jeffries in November and subsequently argue that circumstances have changed, particularly if the Iran war escalates or Jeffries refuses specific policy commitments.
And there’s another possibility: the insurgents don’t need to replace Jeffries to change the direction of the House. If they can assemble a sufficiently large bloc willing to withhold speaker votes, they can negotiate enforceable commitments on Iran funding, committee assignments and floor votes.
That would be a more achievable outcome than recruiting and electing an entirely new leadership team in three days.
The crucial missing ingredient is still organization. Don Leonard’s individual resistance is interesting, but a signed agreement among 15–25 incoming and returning Democrats would be far more consequential.
My suspicion is that January 3 may become the real showdown, particularly if Van Hollen manages to unseat Schumer on December 1. That would transform the psychological environment for the House insurgents overnight.
Where is Kareem Abdul Jabbar when you need him to powerfully shove Hakeem’s head through a basket ball hoop? (anyone 19 out there?).
I take offense of portraying the fine actor Ed Harris as an Orthodox Jew of some sort. He was even great in a Nextflick movie (most of their movies are rubbish) where he played a jaded camera man. Of course, the Truman Show was a “revelation of the method” film made by Peter Weir who is one of my favorite directors of all time, made some classics.
As for another completely off topic comment, just listening to a fantastic interview with your old friend Russ, Tim Kelly, where I learned about the first “war for oil” in US history: the US invasion of Mexico in 1914 so that Exxon could steal their oil. Nothing ever changes does it.
James Perloff interview (Nov. 13)
podomatic.com/podcasts/tkelly6785757/episodes/2026-11-12T21_14_36-08_00
Also amazing research about how the Spanish American wars and WWI really started on totally illegal and false pretexts, and how Winston Churchill who is regarded as a hero by many is really indirectly or directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
Of course, just kidding Russ, love that meme. You are always spot on with the satire.