The young candidates shaking up the Dem Party

Summary

Today, Explained — “The young candidates shaking up the Dem Party”

Date: June 20, 2026
Hosts: Vox’s America, Actually edition (Esteed Herndon)
Guests: Alex Boris (NY-12 Congressional Candidate), Darieliza Avila Chevalier (NY-13 Congressional Candidate)

---

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode spotlights two young Democratic candidates in New York’s 2026 congressional primaries—Alex Boris (NY-12) and Darieliza Avila Chevalier (NY-13)—who represent broader debates roiling the Democratic Party nationwide. Boris’s race centers on the future of AI regulation and the political risks facing tech critics, while Chevalier’s campaign challenges establishment politics by pushing for generational and ideological change, raising questions on how far left the party should go. Their candidacies offer a window into pressing issues: tech oversight, generational divides, policing, immigration, and the meaning of progressive leadership.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Alex Boris (NY-12): AI Regulation, Political Risk, and Industry Pushback

The National Significance of NY-12 ([02:15])

• Alex Boris: The district’s AI-centered campaign gained national attention after a pro-Trump super PAC made him "their number one enemy," seeking to "send a message to every member of Congress that the cost of having a say in how AI affects our kids’ brains or our jobs or the environment, that cost has to be political destruction" ([02:21]).
• Host’s Framing: Boris’s race is now a referendum on whether politicians can challenge tech and win.

Background: Tech Industry Experience and Ethical Break ([03:51])

• At Palantir (Obama Era): Focused on improving government efficiency through civilian federal projects (DOJ opioid crackdown, bank fraud, epidemic tracking).
  • "While I led the project, we recovered $20 billion for taxpayers from the big banks." ([04:00])
• Ethical Split: Left Palantir after its government work pivoted to Trump-era ICE deportations.
  • "That, for me, was the red line. When they told us that, that's when I made plans to quit." ([05:34])
  • Gave up $2 million in unvested stock options: "I have red lines and I’m not going to cross them." ([07:19])

The Raise Act: Landmark AI Safety Law ([11:03])

• Overview: Requires largest AI labs (OpenAI, Google, Meta, etc.) to publish safety plans and report critical safety incidents to NY state.
• Vision: Wants stronger federal action—audits, developer ’duty of care,’ and actual responsibility akin to tobacco industry lessons.
  • "If your model is failing your own test… you shouldn’t release that to the public." ([12:21])
• Legislative Challenges:
  • "It was significantly watered down before passage... If that watered down was coming from a Democrat in a blue state, what is the hope for AI legislation at least on a robust level, on a national level?" ([12:56])
  • "There’s a lot of fear among elected officials that if they try to regulate this technology, it will be the end of their political careers." ([13:25])
  • "They chose to spend $10 million against me… If I win, that then becomes an example for everyone else that, hey, you don’t have to water it down." ([14:10])

Progressive AI Policy: Moratoriums and Public Equity ([07:56], [09:30])

• Moratorium on Data Centers: Agrees with calls to pause, noting "we are rushing ahead on AI before we actually know how to align these incredibly dangerous systems" ([07:56]).
• Competition with China: Argues China is actually regulating more aggressively, and cooperation on core safety research is possible ([08:46]).
• AI Dividend: Proposes public stake in AI labs, with revenues funding worker support or even UBI:
  • "The AI dividend would raise revenue from a few sources… to protect Americans in this transition or… keep their security." ([10:00])

Notable Quotes

• "We just need to put humans first." ([09:30])
• "They know it’s the right thing to do, they’re just so scared of the money on the other side." ([14:56])

---

2. Darieliza Avila Chevalier (NY-13): Generational Change and the Boundaries of the Left

Why NY-13 Matters Nationally ([18:43])

• Chevalier: Running to "win housing for all, to abolish ICE, to make sure that our tax dollars stop going towards these endless wars" ([18:55]).
• Argues the policies her district is fighting for have universal relevance.

Motivation and Community Disconnect ([19:30])

• Didn’t initially intend to run; says campaign arose from "the lack of presence we felt as a community from our representative."
  • Organized around mass incarceration, immigration, and Palestine for 14 years—never heard from incumbent ([19:30]).
• Inspired by last year’s progressive mayoral victory, signaling "people are starting to believe again that government can actually work for working people" ([20:11]).

Challenging the Incumbent: Identity vs. Values ([21:03])

• Congressman Espaillat: First Dominican American, formerly undocumented, powerful incumbent.
• Chevalier: "It’s not enough to share identity. We also have to share our values and share our fight and share a commitment to winning for our people." ([21:30])

Policy Differences: War, Budgets, and Priorities ([22:43])

• Points to Espaillat’s repeated support for military aid to Israel instead of focusing on one of the state’s poorest districts.
  • "[He] has voted time and time again to send more arms to Israel despite… we could really benefit from having those resources come back to our home." ([22:43])
• Defends linking foreign policy and local affordability: "Our budgets are moral documents… when we have a representative who… is voting to send billions upon billions of dollars to endless war… they are more concerned with sending that money there than bringing it back to our communities." ([23:45])

Policing, Abolition, and 'Woke' Politics ([25:05])

• Defends vision for a world without prisons or police, but clarifies:
  • "We are creating the conditions where we all feel so safe… that we don’t need an institution that is militarized." ([26:21])
• Regrets some "woker than thou" rhetoric from earlier activism.
  • "What I’m saying is that the moral way forward is to make sure that we are creating the conditions where we all feel so safe… that we don’t need an institution that is militarized." ([26:21])
  • "In that era, there was a lot of pressure to be… woker than thou… that has gotten us to a point where a lot of people groan or roll their eyes." ([27:31])

Immigration: Abolish ICE and End All Deportations ([28:21]–[29:42])

• Unapologetically opposes all deportations, including of those convicted of crimes:
  • "All deportations are wrong… [The criminal system] is one that… we want to engage with these issues. Right. Then we need to make sure that it is one that isn’t also discriminatory on the basis of where people were born." ([28:51]–[29:42])
  • Calls double punishment “deeply racist” and unjust.

Rhetoric Within the Party ([30:56])

• Regrets inflammatory tweets (e.g., "fuck Kamala Harris"), but underscores frustrations felt by many Black and brown Democrats forced to defend establishment figures they don’t really support:
  • "So many Black and brown people are constantly having to save the Democratic Party from itself." ([31:25])
• Argues Democrats must present a vision people want to vote for, not just an alternative to Trump.

What Her Win Would Mean ([32:08])

• "People really believe in these values, that they believe in this vision we’re fighting for and that they desperately want and are hungry for… a politics of life." ([32:17])

---

Key Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Alex Boris (on AI lobbying):
  • "The people…chose to make an example out of me. They chose to spend $10 million against me and say, we’re gonna do whatever it takes to beat me. And so if I win, that then becomes an example for everyone else that, hey, you don’t have to water it down." ([14:10])
• Darieliza Avila Chevalier (on progressive rhetoric):
  • "In that era, there was a lot of pressure to be, you know, woker than thou…that has gotten us to a point where a lot of people groan or roll their eyes…so counterproductive to the things that we’re actually fighting for." ([27:31])
• On double punishment in deportations:
  • "If we truly believe that double jeopardy is something that is unconstitutional, something that is unethical, we cannot subject people to that on the basis of where they were born." ([29:42])
• On party frustration:
  • "So many Black and brown people are constantly having to save the Democratic Party from itself…constantly being told that we need to vote for people who don’t necessarily align with our values." ([31:25])
• On hope and progressive victories:
  • "People are starting to believe again that government can actually work for working people." ([20:11])

---

Important Timestamps

• 02:15: Why NY-12's race is now of national importance (Boris on super PAC targeting)
• 04:00: Palantir work & ethical red line (Boris)
• 07:56: On AI moratoriums and American leadership (Boris)
• 10:00: Explaining the AI dividend (Boris)
• 11:03: What the Raise Act does (Boris)
• 13:25: The political risks and fears among Democrats on AI regulation
• 18:43: Why NY-13 matters for progressive and generational change (Chevalier)
• 21:30: Identity vs. values in representation (Chevalier)
• 22:43: Concrete policy differences in foreign aid (Chevalier)
• 26:21: Public safety, policing, and abolition (Chevalier)
• 27:31: The impact—and regrets—of “woker than thou” rhetoric (Chevalier)
• 28:51 & 29:42: Defense of abolishing all deportations (Chevalier)
• 31:25: On Black and brown Democrats having to "save the Party from itself" (Chevalier)
• 32:17: What a win would mean for the movement (Chevalier)

---

Conclusion

This episode illustrated the crosscurrents and new divides within the Democratic Party. Alex Boris makes the case for urgent, principled regulation of powerful technologies—despite big-money threats—and offers a new model of public-tech responsibility. Darieliza Avila Chevalier pushes for a bold progressive vision, openly critical of establishment tactics and rhetoric, and unafraid to challenge not just right-wing opponents but the centrist status quo of her own party. Both candidates represent not just their districts, but the high stakes of the national conversation on the Democratic Party’s future.

---

Listen to this episode if you want to understand:

• The real forces shaping the AI regulatory debate
• How DSA and progressive insurgents are shifting local and national politics
• The ongoing tension between identity and ideology in Democratic primaries
• The generational clash and rhetorical recalibration on the American left

---

Transcript

[Host]

You can argue that the New York congressional primaries are the most important primaries in all of the country. And that's not just because us New Yorkers think we're the center of the universe. The races that are happening here are highlighting issues that are sure to come up in next year's presidential primary. On tech, on immigration, on policing. So today let's talk to two candidates who races are sure to have national implications. One is about AI and how and if we should regulate this new technology.

[Alex Boris]

I think there's a lot of fear among elected officials that if they try to regulate this technology, it will be the end of their political career.

[Host]

The other is about generational change, representation, and just how far left is too far left.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

There was a lot of pressure to be woker than thou, right? And that has gotten us to a point where a lot of people groan or roll their eyes.

[Host]

Alex Boris of New York 12 and Darieliza Avila Chevalier of New York 13. That's this Week on America actually. Let's dig.

[Sponsor Voice 1]

Support for this show comes from Fetch Pet Insurance. Do you have a pet? Every six seconds, a pet owner in the US gets hit with a vet bill of over $1,000. And it's almost always an unwelcome surprise. That's where Fetch pet insurance comes in. Fetch is the most complete pet insurance get paid back up to 90% of vet bills. You can use any vet in the US and Canada. All vets are in network. Go to fetchpet.comsave right now for your free quote. That's fetchpet.comsave.

[Sponsor Voice 2]

we all do it. You have a night for yourself, but don't like the sound of the silence. So you turn on the TV just for the ambiance. It's a little trick that helps you feel like you've got company and aren't alone. And other insurers, well, they may make you feel alone. But when you switch to geico, you've got claims reps available around the clock. So whenever you need, you'll have people around to help. And let's turn on the washing machine just for good measure. Isn't that soothing?

[Host]

It feels good to have support. It feels good to Geico. Assemblyman Boris, thank you for joining us. We appreciate your time.

[Alex Boris]

Thanks for having me.

[Host]

Why do you think this race has national relevance or has relevance to anyone who doesn't live in New York 12?

[Alex Boris]

When I launched, I thought it would just be a race about New York 12, about the issues that were here and three weeks later on my wedding anniversary. So I remember the specific Day Leading the Future, a super PAC of Trump mega donors announced that they were gonna make me their number one enemy and spend whatever it took to beat me. They wanted to make an example out of me. They chose to try to send a message to every member of Congress that the cost of having a say in how AI affects our kids brains or our jobs or the environment, that cost has to be political destruction. And so this race has now become a test of that thesis as to whether we can stand up to this force.

[Host]

Yeah, I mean, and I wanted to ask why we think they decided to target you. Eight years ago you were at Palantir Technologies. And now the AI industries, to your point, has kind of named you as a leading boogeyman in their races. How do we get from there to here?

[Alex Boris]

You passed the strongest AI safety law in the country. So I was elected in 2022 the state assembly. I became the first Democrat elected in New York state at any level with a degree in computer science. A fact that I find 10% cool and 90% horrifying.

[Host]

Yeah, I'm like thinking about it in my head. I said, oh, I would say that if I were you. But as like a voter, I'm like, oh, that's probably not great. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

[Alex Boris]

But I use that background, that knowledge to pass laws that actually protect people. Right. And it's not about being pro innovation or anti innovation, it's about shaping the technology so that it actually works for the vast majority of American. And one of the bills in particular that I passed was called the Raise Act.

[Host]

Let's again stick with this. What did you do at Palantir?

[Alex Boris]

So I joined during the Obama administration and I worked on civilian federal projects.

[Host]

What does that mean?

[Alex Boris]

So working with the Department of Justice to close down pill mills and tackle the opioid epidemic. Also going after the big banks for their role in the Great Recession. While I led the project, we recovered $20 billion for taxpayers from the big banks. I worked with the CDC to better track epidemics. I worked with the VA to better serve our veter. It was about making use of data to make government actually function and work.

[Host]

I feel like people have a blind spot, me, myself included, just about like the specifics of that work. Cause sometimes I can kind of feel like you say palantirs working with the government to track something better, even good things like, you know, disease prevention and things like that. And my head goes immediately to like, are we talking surveillance? Like, are we talking about like kind of nefarious use of this type of technology? Like what does it mean to say this private company is. Is working with the government in those ways?

[Alex Boris]

Yeah, it's the right question to ask. And ultimately, we shouldn't be just trusting corporations to make these decisions. This is why you need people in Congress that actually understand the technology and how these contracts work to pass a privacy law that we are 30 years out of date of doing and now with AI needs to be updated even more. But the specifics on the ground of the work that I did was data that the government already had access to and making better use of it to actually achieve its goals.

[Host]

But I want to also ask about, what was your break with Palant? It seems as if there was a moment that caused you to leave. What was the moment that made you think, okay, my work here is dipped in from going from, like, government efficiency or something like that to something I'm more uncomfortable with. Well, to be clear, the work that

[Alex Boris]

I did was always in that realm of things that I was working on to improve. But the company broadly started working on other projects, and in particular, the one that was my red line was their work with ice. So in the Obama administration, they had worked on things like human trafficking and drug trafficking and counterfeiting. Right. Border crimes that are not controversial for the government to want to work on and solve. And then when Trump comes in in 2017, he starts pressuring for that software to be used for deportations, for civil immigration matters. That, for me, was the red line. And so when they told us that, that's when I made plans to quit.

[Host]

And is that still where we are, like it does? Seems like Palantir is still kind of like, you know, aligned with the Trump administration.

[Alex Boris]

I think they're way further. You know, at the time, it was, oh, we're not going to stop it from being used. Now they're actively building features to make it better at doing that. I mean, it has so far from what we were all pitched on at the time during the Obama administration of trying to protect civil liberties to fight fascism. Now they're enabling it.

[Host]

I can see the argument of someone who knows these technologies and how they work being a kind of good force for regulator. But your opponents have also made the argument that they never got involved with this stuff in the first place, that things like companies like Palantir represented a kind of civil liberties threat, and it didn't take an ICE contract for some folks to know that. What's your response to that?

[Alex Boris]

Well, I think they're being opportunistic in how they look at this. I have been very focused on actually making government work. And I think that's a good thing and something that we've been missing in the Democratic Party. And I've also, when challenged, put my morals and my principles over my career and over my financial security. And that was as a private citizen. That wasn't when I was running for office or positioning in some way. That's just. I have red lines and I'm not going to cross them.

[Host]

Yeah, I read you gave up 2 mil in unvested stock options.

[Alex Boris]

It's a little gauche to say, but yes.

[Host]

I was about to say, I don't know if that makes you. I don't know if that's a good thing for your, like, kind of logic for Congress. But it does kind of speak to the, to the seriousness in which you took it.

[Alex Boris]

But it is the truth, you know. And so, you know, I'm proud of that choice. I'm proud of how I've moved and, you know, I will continue to be that fighter in Congress.

[Host]

Before we get to the Raise act, which I do want to talk about, I wanted to bring up some of the other things that Democrats have told us here, even on America, actually, specific to the question of AI regulation. We talked to Bernie Sanders about his call for a moratorium on data centers, saying that Americans would benefit from a pause button. Is that something you support? Why or why not?

[Alex Boris]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we are rushing ahead on AI before we actually know how to align these incredibly dangerous systems and make sure that they are actually following human instructions or, more to the point, human morals and attitudes. Right. You talk to any of the frontier labs, then they've all said, hey, we would support a pause if it's a thing that could happen. Right. But you hear this in politics all the time. Oh, if we could change it, we'd do it, but we're stuck here. Okay, let's make it so that's the power of government to do that.

[Host]

Isn't the argument against if I can embody the others? I heard Senator Gallego actually told me this on the show also that something like a moratorium puts us behind the race from China, does not allow these companies to innovate and the speed in which is necessary right now. Like, isn't there a reality of a kind of arms race that a moratorium could put us behind?

[Alex Boris]

If you act solely, unilaterally, that becomes a risk. But I think what people miss in that conversation is there's actually a lot more alignment here than people realize. Like, China is regulating AI Far more than anything that's even been proposed in the Western hemisphere. The ccp, the Chinese Communist Party, is terrified of an LLM saying the wrong thing, empowering the wrong person. And so listen, there's gonna be parts where we compete, and I support export controls on China. And obviously there's gonna be certain sensitive areas where we're never gonna align. But on the basics of verification of how AI works, on alignment of how AI works on that research, there's actually room for us to be working together in a way to have this work for humans. We just need to put humans first.

[Host]

What about Sanders call for public ownership of AI? He's recently announced legislation that would give people a 50% equ in Frontier AI labs. How about that proposal?

[Alex Boris]

Yeah, I have a similar one to take stakes in the labs. The details really matter. And I know he's still working on the final language. I don't really want to give the Trump administration full control out of all these frontier labs, but having the American people have a stake in them, I think helps as a insurance policy for the potential disruption.

[Host]

This is your AI dividend.

[Alex Boris]

Exactly right.

[Host]

Can you explain it?

[Alex Boris]

Yeah. So the idea of the AI dividend is to give Americans a stake in the development of AI and approaching with humility that we don't know exactly what's going to happen with the labor market. We could hit a bottleneck and it could end up more like past technologies or this is the first technology where the makers of it are saying their goal is to replace all human labor. Doesn't mean they'll succeed. But like, when that goal's on the table, government's got to take it seriously. So the AI dividend would raise revenue from a few sources, to spend it on things to help protect Americans in this transition or to really just keep their security. So on the low end, that could be things like job retraining programs, investment in community colleges, tax breaks for companies that retain workers and retrain them instead of laying them off right in the middle. It could be something like a job guarantee. I mean, we have so much productive work in government at the city, state and federal level, we could put people to if we had the funding for it. And at the most disruptive, if it does replace all human labor or something close to, it could pay out a universal basic income or universal high income.

[Host]

Well, let's talk about the Raise act, because as you mentioned, it is the signature piece of legislation that you passed through the state assembly and represents a state model for AI regulation that I imagine will be A focus if you make it to Congress. What does the act do?

[Alex Boris]

The Raise act was such a light touch piece of legislation, but it is the strongest AI safety law in the country. So it says that the absolute largest frontier AI developers. So right now that would really only apply to Xai, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Meta. Right. Microsoft isn't there yet. They might be. Amazon isn't there yet. They might be. But the biggest of the big they have to have a safety plan that they make public for how they'll handle risks around what could happen if someone were to misuse it for a bioweapon or how they could lose control of AI or like the really big impacts. They have to make that public. They have to then disclose to the government critical safety incidents which we define in the bill as causing a serious injury or death or will imminently cause a serious injury or death and share some of the other basic data with New York state government so that we can understand and be tracking what's happening and keep people safe. On the federal level, we need to do that, plus third party audits for all these companies and an actual developer. Duty of care.

[Host]

What does that mean?

[Alex Boris]

So that means that you take some responsibility for the product that's out there. In other words, if your model is failing your own test or best practices would say this is particularly risky, you shouldn't release that to the public. So in other words, the tobacco companies were the first to know that cigarettes caused cancer, but they just denied it publicly and didn't act on that info and kept doing it with AI. These companies, many of them are the experts and I think we should be hiring into government, getting our own expertise. But really it's at these labs and if they are coming to the conclusion that there is an extreme risk here, they can't just bury that, they have to act on it.

[Host]

And right now that, that that incentive doesn't exist.

[Alex Boris]

Exactly right.

[Host]

So as you mentioned, this was significantly watered down before passage. New York Governor Kathy Hochul changed some stuff from the original bill. The original bill prohibited companies from releasing AI models that failed safety tests. That was removed. Penalties for AI companies were scaled back. If that watered down was coming from a Democrat in a blue state, what is the hope for AI legislation at least on a robust level, on a national level, we haven't seen even willingness to do the first steps of that firm.

[Alex Boris]

I think there's a lot of fear among elected officials that if they try to regulate this technology it will be the end of their political careers. That there's so much money on the other side. And we've even seen leadership within the Democratic Party tell marginal members, hey, maybe stay away from AI. There's so much money out there. And that, to your first question, comes back to why this race in particular is so important. Because the people who are scaring everyone, that are intimidating everyone, chose to make an example out of me. They chose to spend $10 million against me and say, we're gonna do whatever it takes to beat me. And so if I win, that then becomes an example for everyone else that, hey, you don't have to water it down. Like, you know that 80% of your constituents want there to be regulations on AI, and that can be a winning

[Host]

issue, because that is the interesting part. We don't really see controversy from a ground level. There's a 70, 80% call for regulation. We see this consistently. Even things like moratoriums are things I hear much more from regular voter than from elected official. Is that gap between the Democratic elected talking about this issue and the where voters are on that issue? Is that all just money?

[Alex Boris]

I think it's 80, 90% fear for most elected officials hearing from their neighbors, hey, what are we doing? Like, this is moving so fast. Why don't we get a say?

[Host]

I can't imagine they're not hearing it.

[Alex Boris]

We're all hearing it all the time. And I tell you, every time I introduce a new AI policy in the campaign, I get texts from Congress members, hey, this is great. Love this. You know, And I always respond, introduce it.

[Host]

Yeah.

[Alex Boris]

Like, I'm not gonna be there for seven months. This is moving fast. Like, I'll help you write the bill. Like, let's go. Let's get it out there. And then it's crickets. And it's. They know it's the right thing to do. They're just so scared of the money on the other side.

[Host]

Yeah. Part of me feels, and this is the cynical take that, like, the window of 2024 was so important on this issue and that electives kind of blew it. Like, it feels to me as if, why weren't we talking about AI regulation throughout that election? Like, why weren't we talking about the future of work during that election? Like, I worry that come four years from now, those impacts are here, more so than it's a thing that people still can be, like, kind of proactively

[Alex Boris]

regulated against this super PAC that's attacking me. They only have to win for, like, an election cycle or two. Now is the moment. Now is the moment. And so they can go so big right now because they don't have to spend forever. Like, if they lock in a power structure where just a few billionaires get to decide how all of this works, that might be a lot harder to change in four years than if we just get it right now.

[Host]

Assemblyman Boris, thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate your time.

[Alex Boris]

Thanks for having me.

[Host]

Yeah, thank you. Up next, how a race in upper Manhattan and the Bronx highlights the splits among the Democratic Party nationally. We asked Darieliza Avila Chevalier, a Democratic socialist running in New York's 13th congressional district. The question that's on a lot of Democrats minds right now, how far left is too far left?

[Sponsor Voice 3]

Support for the show today comes from Grow Therapy. A lot of people talk about summer like it's supposed to be relaxed and carefree, but if this season brings up money, stress, body stress, family stress, or social stress, that's real too, you guys. Grow Therapy can help with that. All of that, all of those. Whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th. Hello. Grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. They can connect you with thousands of independent licensed therapists across the United States, offering both virtual and in person sessions, nights and also weekends. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 125 insurance plans. Sessions average $21 with insur insurance and some pay as little as $0. Depending on their plan. You can visit growtherapy.com explained today to get started, that's growtherapy.com explained. Availability and coverage vary by state and insurance plan.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

When I got a new car, I thought my insurance premium would increase and empty my bank account like if a tween won the lottery. I've invested most of my winnings in chicken tenders because they're bomb. But bro, I bought a house and it's sick, bro. I'm thinking the floor is gonna be all trampoline, bro. With a helipad on the roof. The contractor said it's structurally unsound, but

[Sponsor Voice 2]

they're just being babies.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

But switching to Geico saved me hundreds.

[Sponsor Voice 1]

So my bank account is safe.

[Host]

It feels good to save some hard earned cash. It feels good to Geico.

[Alex Boris]

Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder? With a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other, Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, E commerce, and more. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for free at odoo.com that's O-O-O.com.

[Host]

Thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate your time.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

Thanks for having me.

[Host]

Darieliza New York's 13th congressional district composes Manhattan's west side, including parts of Harlem and the Bronx. If you don't live in those districts, if you don't necessarily care about these districts, why should this race still matter to you?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

Well, this is a race that is going to have national implications. And I think the things that we're fighting for in this district apply to people across the country. I'm running to win housing for all, to abolish ice, to make sure that our tax dollars stop going towards these endless wars so that we can finally invest in our babies here and not in bombs that are destroying communities abroad.

[Host]

Yeah, part of my interest in this race is a question of generational change. Democrats everywhere have been thinking about like, kind of younger candidates even after the 2024 election. And I wondered for you, what was the moment when you looked out at your representative at your district and thought, I should get in here?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

You know, I actually never thought that I would run for office. I was recruited to run. And for me, it really isn't so much about age. It's about the lack of presence that we felt as a community from our representative. And I'm somebody who's been organizing in the city for over 14 years around various issues, around mass incarceration, around immigration, justice, around Palestine. And not once had I heard from my representative, despite the numerous times that I'd reached out.

[Host]

Like, how much should we draw a line from Zoram Hamdani's win in New York City last year to candidacies like yours? Obviously, there's the DSA link, but there seems to be a broader sense of new voices, particularly on the left, emerging. Like, does this candidacy happen without Mamdani winning last year?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

You know, I think what was so incredible about the mayor's race last year was that he presented a vision. He was no longer giving us just the politics of cynicism and why we should be afraid of the other guy. It was a vision for us to hold onto, to be able to fight for. And, you know, that is a vision I share, a vision of government that is Actually responsive to the people of the city. And that's why I started canvassing for him and leading canvases when he was still pulling at 1%. And early on, I was knocking doors in Harlem and Washington Heights and folks were like, well, we love the vision, but can he win? And now, six months in into his role as mayor. Right. People are starting to believe again that government can actually work for working people. And that is the type of government that we have presented in our vision in this run for Congress.

[Host]

Let's dig into the substance of this. Your opponent, Congressman Adriano Espaillad, is the first Dominican American elected to Congress, first formally undocumented person in Congress. He is the chairman currently of the Hispanic Caucus, and I think, fair to say, a trailblazing figure in New York politics and Latino politics, probably nationally. I mean, all of that feels like a lot of weighty things that I think a lot of folks in the electorate know him by. Why is that not enough for you?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

Well, you know, again, in the last 10 years that he has been in office, my neighbors and I look around and we wonder what has gotten better. Because I'm somebody who has had to think about whether I can afford to stay in the city that I love despite doing everything that society has told me was the right thing to do. I went to college, I went to grad school, I was working on my PhD to become a professor. And still I got priced out of the career that I was working towards and wondering whether I can make my rent and teach the classes I wanted to teach. Right. And for so many, that is the reality. And so, you know, the things that people are facing day in and day out uptown in the Bronx are the results of the failed leadership that we've had for far too long. The lack of fight. Right. The lack of a vision for how we address these issues. And we had an example last year of how that can change. When we put in folks in office who actually share our values, it's not enough to share identity. We also have to share our values and share our fight and share a commitment to winning for our people.

[Host]

I see the differences in political style and priority. I wanted to see what are the differences in policy. Can you point to me a vote that the Congressman has taken in Washington that you would do differently?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

Not only is it votes, right. He is someone who refuses to align with the position that most Democrats in this country hold, which is that we need to stop arming Israel and has voted time and time again to send more arms to Israel despite the fact that we live in the second poorest congressional district in the state and by some measures of the country and could really benefit from having those resources come back to our home, to our community.

[Host]

I mean, are we sure that the residents of NY13 share the priorities that you do? I mean, I remember hearing from Democrats in 2024 that voters don't prioritize foreign policy, that they're more concerned with the kind of affordability question, they're more concerned with things like constituent services from their member of Congress. How are you sure that the priorities that you have and that kind of motivated you to run against the congressman are shared by the district?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

I think that the district understands that we are constantly being told that there are not enough resources for us while watching a livestream genocide being committed with our tax dollars.

[Host]

So it's a connecting the affordability question to the money.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

There's a direct connection and I think people understand that. Right? Where we have folks who are 26% of our people are living below the poverty line, our budgets are moral documents. They tell us exactly what we actually prioritize in our society. And when we have a representative who, who is voting to send billions upon billions of dollars to endless war and to slaughter, what that tells us is that, you know, they are more concerned with sending that money there than bringing it back to our communities.

[Host]

It's kind of an America first argument from the left.

[Sponsor Voice 2]

It sounds like in many ways, I

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

think it's an argument about life, right? It's an argument of making sure that our resources are investing in life and not in death. And I think we save lives abroad, but we're also saving lives here, right, by investing in our communities here.

[Host]

I wanted to ask about kind of the differences between five years ago and now. You know, maybe the WOKE one versus WOKE two difference. You know, like partly I remember back to even when Mayor Mamdani was running and I remember asking him questions about previous positions he had on abolishing police and defunding. And he really pivoted from that stuff, said that he had made a change in mind or that he kind of believed that stuff. In error. You tweeted once. A world without prisons or police is possible, necessary and the only moral way forward. I wanted to ask, do you still believe that? And if not, what specifically changed?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

You know, I think what is often ignored in these types of questions is that at the heart of our movement for justice is public safety, is making sure that we are actually increasing safety. I am someone who works at a public defender's office and I see how the vast majority of the clients we work with are black and brown people who are living through the indignity of poverty. And the way that we use policing as a response to that. Right. As opposed to actually investing in the things that will increase public safety, that will make their lives more dignified, that will make the lives of our entire community more dignified. I think often gets lost in this conversation. And in a time where we are spending more and more money to militarize our police force, why is it that we still feel so deeply unsafe?

[Host]

But I think that's still a little distinct from the question I'm asking, which is, do you think in your current, you know, 2026, that police hold a role in the public safety arsenal?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

You know, and the thing is, they are. Right. They're here. Right. And that is how we have been engaging with this question of public safety for so long, that, of course, we're not going to get rid of the police overnight. And that was. That was really never.

[Host]

I guess it's the only moral way forward.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

And what I would like to, you know, to that is that what I'm saying then and now, and I know that we're probably going to get to this question of how I discussed these issues in the past, but what I'm saying is that the moral way forward is to make sure that we are creating the conditions where we all feel so safe in our society that we don't need an institution that is militarized.

[Host]

I wanna ask about a couple other deleted tweets. You deleted more than 3,500 tweets after running for office. Before we ask about the specific ones, I just wanted to ask, like, how do you think about in hindsight, that kind of 2019, 2020 moment.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

Yeah. Well, just to make the record clear, I did not delete those tweets because I was running for office. I deleted my entire Twitter account many years ago because I just found it was more productive to just be focused on my PhD and focused on my organizing.

[Host]

That part is definitely agreeable. Logging off is always helpful.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

Yeah, I deleted the account. The entire account. And I know that there's a lot of discourse my opponent is spreading around me doing this because I'm running for office, but that's simply not true.

[Host]

Okay.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

And, you know, I do have regrets on how I expressed my values on Twitter, because my values are around dignity, it's around accountability, it's around justice. And I think rhetoric matters. I certainly wouldn't use a lot of the language that I used Back then today. And I think it's deeply important that we use language that is unifying. Language that allows people who might not at first understand where you're coming from, but can still hear you and can come to a place of empathy and understanding. You know, in that era, there was a lot of pressure to be, you know, woker than thou. Right. And that has gotten us to a point where a lot of people groan or roll their eyes. Right. And that has been so counterproductive to the things that we're actually fighting for.

[Host]

I appreciate that answer. I want to still ask about two tweets specifically, because I think they are relevant to the race. The first is all deportation is wrong. Now in Congress, obviously that comes with a lot of questions about immigration enforcement. And even as Democrats might agree with calls that you have shared to things like abolish ice, I don't know if they're necessarily there on things like all deportation is wrong. You're talking about kind of language change, but that's pretty clear in terms of belief. Is that something you still believe, that phrase?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

Yes, I still believe that all deportations are wrong.

[Host]

Even if we're talking about illegal entry to the country or someone who may have committed a crime.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

So when we're talking about things like illegal entry, we're actually talking about administrative laws. Right. We're not talking about criminal law. And we really need to make a have an understanding of what it is that we are doing when we say that people who are non citizens who have a different status based on where they were born, why they should endure an additional form of punishment when they have already gone through the criminal system.

[Host]

Let me concede the question of people who have not committed a crime, because I think that that's not really the question at hand. Like if we're saying all deportation is wrong, though, that would seem to also include people who were convicted of breaking U.S. criminal law. Is the deportation of those people wrong?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

Yes. And the reason I say that is because we have a criminal system. It isn't perfect, but it exists. And it is one that if we accept as the process by which we wanna engage with these issues. Right. Then we need to make sure that it is one that isn't also discriminatory on the basis of where people were born. Right. To subject someone who has committed a crime to both a criminal system and then additionally to an immigration system that also detains them in the very same facilities that criminal people who are convicted of criminal convictions are also held right. And then deported and ripped away from everything. They know and love. That is also punishment. It is double punishment. And if we truly believe that double jeopardy is something that is unconstitutional, something that is unethical, we cannot subject people to that on the basis of where they were born. And I also believe that the question of deportation is one that is deeply racist. It is one that believes that because someone was born outside of this country, that they deserve one of the most cruel forms of punishment imaginable. To be stripped away from your entire community.

[Host]

I hear that argument. I appreciate you laying it out. The last tweet I will ask about is really one that I just think comes up because Democrats, in language like you're talking about, you tweeted, fuck Kamala Harris, which I do have to ask about. Like, how does that fit within the premise of bringing people in that you

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

laid out and to the point? It's not language I would use. And, you know, I'm a black woman. I would have loved to seen a black woman president. Right. And despite my many criticisms, I still voted.

[Host]

Yeah.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

I still voted for Biden and Harris. Right. And I think what that reflects is how so many black and brown people are constantly having to save the Democratic Party from itself. Right. We're constantly being told that we need to vote for people who don't necessarily align with our values or fighting for the same visions that we hold, but because we need to do that, because there's this other force over here that is more terrifying.

[Host]

Yeah, the Trump binary.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

Exactly.

[Host]

Republicans are so scary that you might have your criticisms, but you got to eat it for the purposes of winning.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

And what I'm arguing is that it's not enough. Right. We need Democrats who are presenting a vision that people want to actually come out and vote for.

[Host]

What do you think a win would mean, and what would a loss mean? Like, let's say you come out on top that day. What is that about? And let's say you don't. What would that be about?

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

You know, I really feel really great about where we're at this campaign. And so I'm not going to put anything negative into the air, but I do. You know, I've been really excited about just building this campaign because I think it's going to have an impact on not just District 13, but the entire country. I think what it will show is that, you know, Miramdani's win last year wasn't a fluke, that people really believe in these values, that they believe in this vision that we're fighting for and that they desperately want and are hungry for. A government that is actually responsive to them, one that they can be part of every single day of their lives, one that is actually invested in them and in building a politics of life.

[Host]

Thank you so much. I really appreciate your time. I appreciate you laying out your vision and we'll see how this ends up.

[Darieliza Avila Chevalier]

Yeah, thank you so much.

[Host]

I appreciate it. So following this interview, we reached out to Congressman Espayad's campaign to get a response to Chevalier's claims that he hasn't delivered for his district and that he's prioritized interest abroad over interest at home. And we didn't hear back from the campaign, but I think that lack of response speaks to the broader argument that Darieliza and Alex are making. Yes, it's one about an affirmative vision for progressives and the left, but it's also a critique, one that says you gotta try something new because the establishment is simply out of touch. America actually will be in your feeds every Saturday with an interesting interview in culture or politics. And you can also watch these episodes on the Vox YouTube channel. Just go to YouTube.com vox or click the link in the show notes. The best way to support this show is by becoming a Vox member. Members get a bonus segment on Patreon every week and they make our work possible. Go to Vox.commembers to join. That's Vox.commembers to join. This show was edited by Kasha Bresalian, Fact checked by Esther Gim and mixed by Shannon Mahoney. Christopher Snyder is our video editor and Khun Loui is our senior art director. Our executive producer is Christina Ballas and our theme music is by Breakmaster Cylinder. Additional support from Miranda Kennedy, David Tadashore and Nisha Chital. I'm Esteed Herndon and this is America. Actually,

[Sponsor Voice 2]

We've all been there. You pop into the shop for five minutes and all of a sudden you've forgotten where you parked.

[Host]

Car. Car unstopped.

[Sponsor Voice 2]

Unfortunately, that lost feeling is what it's like trying to manage your policy with other insurers here.

[Alex Boris]

Car Come out, come out, wherever you are, please.

[Sponsor Voice 2]

With Geico, you can use the app to easily manage all your policies in one place.

[Alex Boris]

Did this parking lot have a waterfall?

[Sponsor Voice 2]

I think you've wandered too far, mate.

[Host]

It feels good to find what you're looking for. It feels good to Geico.

[Sponsor Voice 1]

Your next chapter in healthcare starts at Carrington College's School of Nursing in Portland. Join us for our open house on Tuesday, January 13th from 4 to 7pm you'll tour our campus, see live demos, meet instructors and learn about our Associate Degree in Nursing program that prepares you to become a registered nurse. Take the first step toward your nursing career. Save your spot now at Carrington. Edu Events. For information on program outcomes, visit carrington. Edu Sci Fi.