Staff Reports
The BlazeTV interview with City Journal’s Stu Smith has lit a match under a story conservatives have been watching: the Democratic Socialists of America’s internal resolution dubbed R‑26 and the creation of a national “Red Rabbits” Security Commission. If you want a quick way to understand why people on the right are alarmed, watch the segment below — then keep reading. This isn’t idle chatter from cable panels. It’s an inside look at party rules and programs that matter.
What R‑26 and “Red Rabbits” Actually Say
The Springs of Revolution caucus posted the R‑26 text as part of its platform. In plain words, R‑26 calls for chapters to “scale up” efforts to fight what the resolution calls state repression and to prioritize immigrant‑defense work. That language links directly to the DSA’s Red Rabbits Security Commission — an NPC‑level project described in DSA’s own Democratic Left materials. So yes: this comes from inside the organization, not from a late‑night take.
Why City Journal and conservatives are worried
City Journal’s Stu Smith lays out how R‑26, and the planning around Red Rabbits, include training and coordination for confrontational protest support. The magazine reports that some internal documents and discussion framed the effort in strikingly militant terms, even suggesting preparations that could be read as gearing up for mass confrontations. City Journal also says the National Political Committee debated removing a controversial member — identified in reporting as Christopher Winston — but ultimately voted to keep him, a vote reported at 15–10. That combination of language, structure, and membership is what feeds real concern about a militant turn inside the DSA.
What DSA says — and what still needs answering
To be fair, DSA’s Democratic Left describes Red Rabbits as a harm‑reduction and safety program. The group lists five core trainings: Stop the Bleed/first aid, de‑escalation, firearm safety, unarmed self‑defense, and protest marshaling. Those sound harmless on paper. But when an internal resolution uses words like “fight state repression” and when committees are organized at the national level, skeptics have a right to ask for the adopted R‑26 text, NPC minutes, and the actual training curricula. Those documents will tell us whether this is a set of neighborhood safety classes — or a national playbook for organized clashes with law enforcement.
A reasonable conservative response: scrutiny, not hysteria
Americans should not reflexively panic. They should, however, demand transparency. If an organization is building national infrastructure that coordinates protest support, the public, journalists, and lawmakers must see the official resolutions and vote records. Tax and legal questions could follow if activities cross lines. Until DSA publishes the adopted R‑26 language and the NPC minutes, reasonable doubt remains. In the meantime, conservative watchdogs will keep turning over these rocks — and if something unsavory wriggles out, it will be on full display. Call it vigilance, not paranoia.
