Originally published by The 19th.
When Summer Lee moved back home to the Pittsburgh area in 2015 after graduating from Howard University Law School, she did not plan to run for office.
Lee was an organizer. She supported Sen. Bernie Sanders during his 2016 presidential primary bid, then Hillary Clinton in the general election. The next year, when the high school Lee graduated from became engulfed in scandal after video surfaced showing school officials using stun guns and physical force on Black students, including some with special needs, she attended her first school board meeting.
“It was Black kids who were facing the worst outcomes, who were facing the worst and least amount of opportunities, who were being abused,” Lee recalled in a recent interview with The 19th. Most of the board members were White, and they were “so nonchalant about it,” she said.
Lee is the presumed front-runner in the Democratic primary to fill an open U.S. House seat in a recently redrawn Pittsburgh-area House district when Pennsylvanians vote May 17. Her progressive primary campaign faces headwinds from the local party, which backed one of her opponents, a more moderate, White man without political experience. If elected in November, she would be the first Black woman to represent Pennsylvania in Congress.
Lee’s metamorphosis from organizer to candidate began after that 2017 school board meeting. First, she encouraged a friend who was a parent in the district to run a write-in campaign for a board seat. Then she helped other Black candidates do the same. In a matter of weeks, they put four new members onto the board, along with a new superintendent and principal. Still, when the local chapter of the left-leaning Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) noticed Lee’s successes and reached out about running herself, she hesitated.
“I wasn’t groomed for politics. I wasn’t someone who had political connections and had political networks. It was not something that was normal in my community. It wasn’t just a casual thought that someone like me, with my background, would have,” Lee said.
More from The 19th
“I was an organizer. I was not somebody who was in the foreground, right? I was a background person who really believed in the power of organizing. The thought had never crossed my mind up until that point,” she added.
Lee says she underwent a “very quick reconciliation” and decided it was time to move from the background to the foreground. In 2018, she was one of three DSA-backed women in Pennsylvania who took on incumbents and other moderate Democrats in primaries and went on to win state House seats.
Lee, Sara Innamorato and Elizabeth Fiedler were all in their 30s. None had the traditional pedigree of a statehouse candidate: Lee was an organizer; Innamorato came from a working-class family she described as “apolitical” and had put herself through college; Fiedler was a recent public radio reporter who campaigned with her small children in tow. Their campaigns focused on environmental justice, raising wages, Medicare for All and equity in representation, with Lee and Innamorato challenging incumbent cousins from a Pittsburgh family prominent in Democratic politics.
Innamorato wrote in 2017 during the nationwide #MeToo reckoning: “When women are not at the table, they are on the menu. But if we are at the table, they will pull up a chair and invite another woman to sit next to her. This has never been more true than in politics.”
Pennsylvania ranked 49th among the 50 states at the time in terms of women’s representation in politics. There were no women representing Pennsylvania in the U.S. House or Senate. Only six of the mayors in the state’s 35 largest cities were women. Just 19 percent of state legislators were women. There were no women in statewide executive positions.
Pennsylvania is still one of the 19 states that has never elected a woman governor. In 2018, when Lee, Innamorato and Fiedler were elected to the state House, four Democratic women from Pennsylvania were also elected to the U.S. House. It was a record-breaking year for women in congressional races generally, and their wins helped Democrats take back control of the lower chamber.
Lee, Innamorato and Fiedler were vying for public office without a pipeline, or template, for candidates like themselves: young, progressive women running without the support of the Democratic establishment and little from its donor base. So, they built their own network.
In 2016, Innamorato co-founded She Runs Southwestern Pennsylvania, which supported women running for office, before deciding to run herself. She was introduced to Lee and urged her to jump into the state House race. Innamorato heard Fiedler was running a progressive campaign in the Philadelphia area and called her to talk strategy. The three women convened at a statewide progressive policy conference and went on to hold joint fundraisers and coach one another throughout their campaigns. Lee founded Unite! PAC, an “unapologetically progressive” support system for candidates in western Pennsylvania.
Even though they’re now either the incumbent in their state House reelection bid (Fiedler) or the only candidate in their primary race with elected experience (Lee), the women sometimes still find themselves without their party’s support. The Allegheny County Democratic Committee has backed Lee’s primary competitor, Steve Irwin, a corporate lawyer who has never held elected office. The Philadelphia Democratic Party endorsed Fiedler’s primary challenger, Michael Giangiordano, a real estate broker and political novice who embraced Donald Trump’s presidency on Twitter.
Some state and local parties stay out of contested primaries, or endorse the incumbents. In Pennsylvania, local Democratic party officials vote on whom to endorse in their respective districts. Innamorato said party representatives skew older than the voting population and are less diverse, too.
“It’s not a system that is reflective of the actual electorate in an area … it’s been an inside baseball game for a long time, and it’s slowly changing in parts [of the state] but it hasn’t changed as a whole, and I don’t think we’ve had the leadership at the top to encourage that kind of diversification of the party,” she said.
Lee said she and her contemporaries “have been able to tap into an expanding electorate, the base that we are going to need if we are going to actually beat back against extremism on the right” but it’s “going unrecognized by the party that’s just not been able to catch up.”
Lee’s House campaign is focused on some of the same issues that prompted her to run for the state House: environmental justice and equitable economic growth. She supports a pro-labor-union bill pending in Congress called the PRO Act, Democratic efforts to codify federal abortion access and Medicare for All health care.
Her endorsers include Sanders, along with fellow progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. She is backed by Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, who has a national profile as a member of “the squad.” Lee is supported by left-leaning organizations including Justice Democrats and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, along with EMILY’s List, which backs Democratic women who support abortion rights. Several local chapters of the Service Employees International Union have also endorsed her.
Lee said that the successful school board write-in campaigns, and then her state House bid, empowered her community to believe it was possible to challenge the status quo via electoral politics. Now, she’s taking it to the national stage.
“We’re a community that was accustomed to the system sending us its representative, instead of the other way around. I would say it was a rebalancing, getting us back on track, where we were like: ‘No, this is not the way this is supposed to go, we’re supposed to send our representatives,’” she said.




















U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivers a keynote speech at the 62nd Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Feb. 14, 2026, in Munich, Germany.
Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room
Finally free from the demands of being chief archivist of the United States, secretary of state, national security adviser and unofficial viceroy of Venezuela, Marco Rubio made his way to the Munich Security Conference last weekend to deliver a major address.
I shouldn’t make fun. Rubio, unlike so many major figures in this administration, is a bona fide serious person. Indeed, that’s why President Trump keeps piling responsibilities on him. Rubio knows what he’s talking about and cares about policy. He is hardly a free agent; Trump is still president after all. But in an administration full of people willing to act like social media trolls, Rubio stands out for being serious. And I welcome that.
But just because Rubio made a serious argument, that doesn’t mean it was wholly persuasive. Part of his goal was to repair some of the damage done by his boss, who not long ago threatened to blow up the North Atlantic alliance by snatching Greenland away from Denmark. Rubio’s conciliatory language was welcome, but it hardly set things right.
Whether it was his intent or not, Rubio had more success in offering a contrast with Vice President JD Vance, who used the Munich conference last year as a platform to insult allies and provide fan service to his followers on X. Rubio’s speech was the one Vance should have given, if the goal was to offer a serious argument about Trump’s “vision” for the Western alliance. I put “vision” in scare quotes because it’s unclear to me that Trump actually has one, but the broader MAGA crowd is desperate to construct a coherent theory of their case.
So what’s that case? That Western Civilization is a real thing, America is not only part of it but also its leader, and it will do the hard things required to fix it.
In Rubio’s story, America and Europe embraced policies in the 1990s that amounted to the “managed decline” of the West. European governments were free riders on America’s military might and allowed their defense capabilities to atrophy as they funded bloated welfare states and inefficient regulatory regimes. Free trade, mass migration and an infatuation with “the rules-based global order” eroded national sovereignty, undermined the “cohesion of our societies” and fueled the “de-industrialization” of our economies. The remedy for these things? Reversing course on those policies and embracing the hard reality that strength and power drive events on the global stage.
“The fundamental question we must answer at the outset is what exactly are we defending,” Rubio said, “because armies do not fight for abstractions. Armies fight for a people; armies fight for a nation. Armies fight for a way of life.”
I agree with some of this — to a point. And, honestly, given how refreshing it is to hear a grown-up argument from this administration, it feels churlish to quibble.
But, for starters, the simple fact is that Western Civilization is an abstraction, and so are nations and peoples. And that’s fine. Abstractions — like love, patriotism, moral principles, justice — are really important. Our “way of life” is largely defined and understood through abstractions: freedom, the American dream, democracy, etc. What is the “Great” in Make America Great Again, if not an abstraction?
This is important because the administration’s defenders ridicule or dismiss any principled objection critics raise as fastidious gitchy-goo eggheadery. Trump tramples the rule of law, pardons cronies, tries to steal an election and violates free market principles willy-nilly. And if you complain, it’s because you’re a goody-goody fool.
As White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said not long ago, “we live in a world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.” Rubio said it better, but it’s the same idea.
There are other problems with Rubio’s story. At the start of the 1990s, the EU’s economy was 9% bigger than ours. In 2025 we were nearly twice as rich as Europe. If Europe was “ripping us off,” they have a funny way of showing it. America hasn’t “deindustrialized.” The manufacturing sector has grown during all of this decline, though not as much as the service sector, where we are a behemoth. We have shed manufacturing jobs, but that has more to do with automation than immigration. Moreover, the trends Rubio describes are not unique to America. Manufacturing tends to shrink as countries get richer.
That’s an important point because Rubio, like his boss, blames all of our economic problems on bad politicians and pretends that good politicians can fix them through sheer force of will.
I think Rubio is wrong, but I salute him for making his case seriously.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.