Former Democratic counsel Julian Epstein told a national radio audience that a recent investigation found 51% of the Democratic Socialists of America’s policy committee openly embrace communism, Marxism, or Marxist-Leninism, a claim that spotlights the ideological makeup of the group that influences prominent Democratic lawmakers.

Julian Epstein, who once served as chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, made the assertion on a widely syndicated talk show and pointed to a recent investigatory piece as the source. The claim lands differently coming from a former senior Democratic staffer than from a conservative critic, which is why it drew attention.

The DSA is not a minor campus outfit; it is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and its endorsements and personnel touch high-profile elected officials. If the people setting the DSA’s policy are self-identified communists or Marxist-Leninists, that raises straightforward questions about the views funneled into Democratic politics.

Epstein did not hedge his language when he described the finding and named the organization body affected: the DSA’s policy committee. Then he repeated the core claim on air and cited the investigation as his basis before the exact methodology was explained.

“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.”

Details about how the investigation classified committee members were not provided during the broadcast, leaving open questions about sample size and criteria. Those methodological gaps matter when a precise percentage is cited for a politically charged label.

The DSA’s reach goes beyond policy memos; it shows up in campaign staffing, fundraising, and endorsements that affect real races. Names tied to the organization have appeared inside the operations of top progressive lawmakers, which makes organizational leadership more than theoretical influence.

One clear example involves Frank Llewellyn, who led the DSA for years and later took roles in a member of Congress’s political operation. Llewellyn has served as campaign treasurer and managed PAC finances, and he has received more than $250,000 in payments tied to that political operation since 2018.

Llewellyn described himself as a “lifetime member” of the DSA and remains active in local branches, while organizational material described him as a “lifelong activist and socialist.” Those self-descriptions help explain why critics say the group’s internal identity can diverge from public messaging.

The DSA has long pushed to convert grassroots energy into electoral leverage, a strategy its leaders have celebrated in writing. One past leader urged the group to use its network and ties to progressive Democrats to push both an agenda and organizing efforts, signaling an explicit pipeline from activism to electoral politics.

“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.”

Since then, DSA-backed candidates have scored wins in city, state, and federal contests, and their organizing tactics—canvassing, phone banking, and primary challenges—have pushed the party leftward. Those results have prompted internal debate among Democratic strategists about whether the party is shifting by choice.

For years, many DSA-affiliated politicians have used the label “democratic socialist” to distance themselves from authoritarian regimes, borrowing the rhetoric of social democracies. But if the internal leadership of the group identifies with doctrines that reject private property and markets, the “democratic” qualifier starts to look more like branding than philosophy.

Epstein’s statement rests on a single public claim tied to an investigative piece that was not quoted in full on air, so scrutiny is appropriate and expected. At the same time, the DSA’s documented staffing ties, financial overlaps, and public writings create a context that gives the allegation added weight.

The organization endorses Democrats, places members in campaigns, and influences policy platforms from inside the party. 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.